House of Commons
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Jeremy Quin)
The Department is committed to supporting UK helicopters and the defence industry more broadly. Over the next decade, we plan to spend over £180 billion on equipment and equipment support, which currently includes around £10.9 billion on helicopter capability.
Chris Loder
Many of my constituents in West Dorset work for Leonardo Helicopters in Yeovil, where redundancies have recently been announced. That is of great concern to me, my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr Fysh). What is the Minister doing to support the company?
Jeremy Quin
I share my hon. Friend’s concern. I am pleased to reassure him that those redundancies do not relate to any changes of plan on Ministry of Defence work, but rather to a decision taken by the company to ensure that it remains on a financially strong footing. We continue to work actively with Leonardo on its excellent Merlin and Wildcat helicopters, and I am pleased to support its export drives, including earlier this month in person, in Poland.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab) [V]
Will the Minister ask the Secretary of State to step up to the plate and match the commitment made by the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), to procure “built in Britain”, hence ensuring that there are no redundancies in West Dorset, and to support the awarding of the £1.5 billion fleet solid support vessels contract to a British consortium, to recruit and retain 2,500 UK jobs, and to do so for the many other shovel-ready defence projects, to support British industry, British workers and the British economy to lead us through this covid recession?
Jeremy Quin
We are proud to support many British companies and the entire UK defence sector. Something like £19.2 billion was given to UK companies in 2018-19 to deliver on our defence needs. This has been brought out through our defence and security industrial strategy—DSIS—of which I look forward to sharing more details with the House when it is delivered later this year.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
The Ministry of Defence is examining its capability requirements through the integrated review, guided by Defence Intelligence’s understanding of the threats we face now and in the future. We are examining the evolving doctrines, structures and capabilities of our adversaries to ensure that we develop the capabilities required to deliver the operations of tomorrow.
Mr Mohindra
The defence industry employs tens of thousands of people. Long-term investment in defence will drive economic growth and support highly paid, highly skilled jobs, all of which is in our national interest. Will my right hon. Friend work with the Treasury to ensure that the defence industry is central to plans for our economic recovery and that an ambitious strategy is reflected in the integrated review?
Mr Wallace
I am always happy to work with the Treasury on any number of subjects. Defence’s multibillion-pound investment in the UK powers the skills, innovation and capabilities that keep this country safe, secure and competitive. As a Lancashire MP, Mr Speaker, you will recognise how important the industry is to the skills base in our constituencies. Defence is leading a review of the defence and security industrial strategy to identify steps to ensure a competitive and world-class industrial base that delivers investment, employment and prosperity across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Joy Morrissey
Following recent media reports, what more can my right hon. Friend say on the role that Defence Intelligence plays in assessing threats and our ability to counter them? Will he consider meeting me about an issue concerning a former MOD intelligence training site in Beaconsfield?
Mr Wallace
Defence Intelligence uses its 4,500 exceptionally talented staff to collect, analyse and exploit intelligence. By working internationally and with other Departments, it is able to judge today’s threat and tomorrow’s and ensure that that feeds into the future design under the integrated review.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
May I start by paying tribute to the forces men and women who are working to help the country through the covid crisis? We may soon need to turn to them again, in the face of this renewed pandemic threat.
On the integrated review, I recognise that the cycle of defence decisions does not match the cycle of political elections. Britain still benefits from the skills, technologies and capabilities at the heart of Labour’s Drayson review 15 years ago. The Opposition want the Government to get this integrated review right, but when this is the third Conservative review in just 10 years, how will the Defence Secretary avoid making the big mistakes of the last two?
Mr Wallace
The mistake of all the defence reviews—including the 1998 one, which was exceptionally good, and Lord Drayson’s review—was that they were not matched by funding. The Labour party had exactly the same problem at its last review, which is why in 2010 we inherited a black hole of billions of pounds, and indeed, there is a black hole now, identified by the National Audit Office. This is not unique to any political party. Selective picking of the last two reviews, when I could probably talk about the last five, makes no difference. The key is to ensure that our review is driven by threat. The threat defines what we need to do to keep us safe at home, and the ambition defines how far we wish to go. All that then needs to be matched with Treasury funding. If we are over-ambitious, underfunded or both, we will in a few years’ time end up in the position we are in today and have been in the past. It has been my determination to support the men and women of the armed forces the shadow Secretary of State talks about by making sure that we give them something we can afford and tailoring our ambition to match our pocket.
John Healey
Of course, the Labour Government invested in defence at a higher rate each year than that of the previous 10 years, but the Secretary of State is right about the big aims and challenges. He has previously described the 2015 review as over-ambitious and underfunded, and to over-promise and under-deliver has become something of a hallmark of this Government, but that most recent review left Britain with a £7 billion black hole for military equipment; 8,000 fewer soldiers than Ministers pledged as the minimum; and multibillion-pound contracts placed abroad when we could build in Britain. Of course, there is also a pandemic disease, which was confirmed as a tier 1 threat but no Government action was taken to prepare for it. For all the Secretary of State’s talk of the grand picture and grand strategy, does he accept that the British public and the Opposition will judge the Government by these tests?
Mr Wallace
I think that I misheard. I thought the shadow Secretary of State was talking about the position that we inherited in 2010, which was underfunded and over-ambitious—indeed, there was an equipment hole so big that many of the tanks could be driven through it. He could also point out that our men and women in the armed forces have been ready: they have delivered an excellent covid response and have not been found wanting in any way. That is partly because of the investment we have put into them, but also because of expert leadership through the officers and the civil servants in the Department and across the Government.
I assure the shadow Secretary of State that the best way to avoid the pitfalls of the past is to make sure that our ambition is matched by our pockets and what we put into the review. That is fundamentally the best thing we can do for all our forces. I would be delighted to hear the Labour party’s ambition on foreign policy and security; the previous Labour party leadership’s ambition for foreign policy was surrender.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
I echo the comments of the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), about the armed forces and the job they are doing in the current crisis.
We in Scotland know all about over-ambition and under-delivery when it comes to the Ministry of Defence, because six years ago we were promised a frigate factory, but that promise was broken, and we were promised 12,500 regular troops in Scotland, but the number has never even come close to hitting 10,000. Is it not time, if we are to avoid this cycle of over-promising and under-delivery, to move towards multi-year defence agreements that bring together the Secretary of State’s Department, the Treasury and parties in this House to prevent the £13 billion equipment-plan black hole from growing ever further?
Mr Wallace
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. Of course, he may have missed the Type 31 frigate and the Type 26 ships that are being made in Scotland. He may have missed Faslane, although I know they do not want to talk about that in the Scottish National party. He may have missed the recent basing of the P-8s in Kinloss. There will be more investment and more units placed in Scotland, because we believe that the United Kingdom is the best union in this country to deliver security for all its citizens. We do not believe in separation; we do not believe in putting borders between our two countries; and we do not believe in trying to kid-on people in Scotland that they will get something for nothing with a Scottish navy or Scottish armed forces. We are stronger when we are together—that is the United Kingdom and that is what will continue to invest in. There are plenty of troops and plenty of navy in Scotland supporting the security of us all.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
The Government promised 12,500 and the Secretary of State has not once come close to delivering 10,000. He promised a frigate factory and his Department has never come close to delivering it. He must know the difference between the frigate itself and the frigate factory promised under the Conservative Government at the time.
Let us look at Denmark, a country that does use multi-year defence agreements. It does not have a £13.5 billion black hole in its equipment plan; it trebled its defence spending a little over one year ago. Why does the Secretary of State not answer the question? We can take the heat out of these exchanges if he takes our advice and moves to multi-year defence agreements. Will we see that progress, as we were repeatedly told we would, when the integrated review is published next month?
Mr Wallace
We are going to have a multi-year integrated review that sets the course for the next few years so that we can settle down and face tomorrow’s threat, not yesterday’s threat. Scottish National party Members always resort to “Let’s save one regiment or the other” rather than discussing what the threat could be to Scotland and how they are going to deal with it. Fundamentally, all these reviews are supposed to happen not annually but over a number of years. The hon. Member will know that the Treasury has already talked about a four-year spending settlement in the next comprehensive spending review for capital and a three-year settlement for revenue, so it is based on multiple years. Instead of arguing about the difference between a frigate factory and a systems integrator, supplier, subcontractor or supply chain supporter, it would be nice if he would recognise that in Scotstoun and Govan, and in Glenrothes and Fife alone, there are thousands of jobs linked to defence, many of which would not exist if Scotland took a separatist path and abandoned the defence industry and the security of these isles.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
Could the Secretary of State say when this integrated review will actually be published? Following the briefings this morning in No. 10, arguably the biggest threat facing this nation is covid-19, with cases once again rising. We must learn lessons from the first spike. It is clear that the bandwidth—the capacity—of all Governments, including the UK’s, is being tested by this enduring emergency. I have said this before and I say it again: please will he encourage greater use of our senior armed forces to help to advance Whitehall’s strategic thinking, operational planning and delivery, as well as the clarity of the message? They are, after all, trained for crisis management and emergency planning; let us make full use of them.
Mr Wallace
On the timing of the review, it will hopefully report in the autumn—in October/November time. To ensure that our pockets match our ambitions, it is timed to coincide with the comprehensive spending review. Therefore, between the two, we have to make sure that we get the timing right.
On the issue of covid and Defence, we did a fantastic job in the first phase, in my view, through our men and women of the armed forces. We helped to thicken the response across government by command and control, with senior officers and middle-ranking officers going in and helping people. We strengthened the logistics supply chain in the NHS. We provided mobile testing to make sure that testing went to where people were rather than expecting them to get in cars and go up and down motorways. Our response was excellently positioned. Because we were able to make that response, we have already, backed up by people like those in Defence Intelligence, started planning for any second eventuality, either a second wave or not a wave but an alternative challenge, whether that is winter pressures, floods or Brexit. All that is ongoing. I am confident that our men and women will be able to deliver, whatever demands are put on government. I offer them to government on a regular basis. I know that the Prime Minister is incredibly supportive of taking up that offer when the needs fit.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Operation Arbacia has exposed international terror links running from Iran to Ireland and from Hezbollah to the Real IRA. When will the Government be in a position to proscribe the framework operation of that organisation—namely, the Muslim Brotherhood—here in the United Kingdom, and when will they be able to put that organisation out of business?
Mr Wallace
Hezbollah is proscribed—the political wing as well as the military wing. Real, New and Continuity IRA, and all the other dissident republican groups, are also proscribed. The point that the hon. Gentleman really highlights is that the malign activity of Iran has not stopped. People who think that that does not get back to us on our streets should look at that latest operation, which showed New IRA reaching out in Lebanon or working with Hezbollah and other actors potentially aligned to Iran to potentially inflict murder and death on these streets, either here or in Northern Ireland. We should not forget that. Old habits die hard. These people are now potentially subject to judicial trial, and I cannot do anything to threaten that, but we should point to the facts that he highlights and show that our adversaries link up around the world.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
Within days of the explosion, Defence deployed HMS Enterprise, the first foreign ship to reach Beirut, in order to survey the blast zone and share crucial data on hazardous material blocking the port approaches. In addition, Defence provided targeted support for Lebanese armed forces who have been co-ordinating the humanitarian response. This included a field kitchen and tents for 500 people, two medical cold storage containers, and a team of advisers.
Tom Randall
I welcome the MOD’s humanitarian response to the disaster in Beirut, but it is important that aid actually reaches the people who need it and is used for the benefit of the people. For example, a donation of tea by Sri Lanka for the victims of the blast was distributed to the families of presidential guards. Can my right hon. Friend tell me how he is going to ensure that aid reaches the people who need it, and also how important defence diplomacy has been in providing that support?
Mr Wallace
Defence diplomacy is incredibly important in making sure that, as my hon. Friend says, the assistance delivered on the ground gets to where it needs to go. It is also incredibly important in making sure we smooth the way in many countries after a disaster or, indeed, just in countries with a different system. That is why we invest in our defence diplomacy network, including our defence attachés. They were first on the ground in Lebanon, and they managed to make way for a number of our advisers, who are in place now. He is absolutely right: we need to make sure that the aid is always targeted to the right place. The defence attaché network does just that, and it will continue to get our full support.
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Johnny Mercer)
The MOD has continued to provide a full range of veterans support services throughout the United Kingdom during the covid-19 pandemic. In conjunction with the £6 million provided to the armed forces charity sector, the Department has helped many veterans contribute to the response to the pandemic through veterans volunteering organisations or working alongside the military contribution in the national interest.
Holly Mumby-Croft
Would my hon. Friend be able to tell me how the Ministry of Defence plans to continue to use the resources of the UK’s armed forces to help tackle the coronavirus pandemic?
Johnny Mercer
We have seen members of the armed forces working alongside our infrastructure across the United Kingdom, whether they have been inserted in local resilience forums or, indeed, the planners we stood up here in London. UK defence has made a significant contribution to the national effort to defeat this virus, and that will continue in the months ahead.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Johnny Mercer)
The Veterans Welfare Service continues to provide the full range of support services to veterans during the covid-19 pandemic.
Henry Smith [V]
Last year, the Crawley armed forces and veterans breakfast club was established, and I have enjoyed meeting it several times since then, most recently on the VJ75 anniversary. What specific support can be provided to such grassroots groups that support our armed forces and veterans personnel?
Johnny Mercer
When LIBOR funding came to an end two years ago, it was replaced by something called the Armed Forces Covenant Fund Trust. It is administered in a professional way, and all charities and such grassroots organisations can now bid into it for grants. I am happy to write to my hon. Friend with details of how we can pass that on to support the great work that those in Crawley do at their breakfast clubs.
Simon Jupp
I would like to thank the Minister for his response. I am sure he will join me in welcoming the Royal Marines family centre at Lympstone, due to open in October, which will support serving Royal Marines, veterans and their families. The Commando Training Centre is a source of enormous pride for East Devon and the many former Marines who live nearby. Could the Minister outline what further support the Government have provided during the pandemic, particularly for those experiencing exacerbated challenges due to lockdown measures, such as mental ill health and alcohol addiction?
Johnny Mercer
I pay tribute to the Commando Training Centre Royal Marines. I was down there in March, and it really is at the cusp, as it were, of family welfare. We have seen under this Government a significant transition to looking after our people through a number of schemes that they are benefiting from. When it comes to extra support, we have moved a lot of our veterans UK services online. We provide an extra £6 million in funding to the charity sector, but of course there is always more to do.
Alan Mak
Captain Tom Moore’s fundraising was an inspiration to us all, reflecting the public’s continued strong support for our veterans. What additional welfare support is my hon. Friend’s Department providing to veterans in Havant and across the country to access vital services and to find work?
Johnny Mercer
There is an unprecedented number of options at the moment for two things that my hon. Friend mentions. One is dealing with mental health challenges and other is around work. On mental health, we brought online earlier this year the complex treatment service, which runs alongside our transition, intervention and liaison service. I am bringing the high intensity service online later this year, and when that is there, I am comfortable that we will have a world-class level of mental health support for our veterans. When it comes to getting people into work, there have never been more initiatives. I am clear that the single biggest factor that improves the life chances of our veterans is having a job. There are some extremely good examples around now, mirrored of course by the civil service with the guaranteed interview scheme.
Sarah Atherton
As a veteran and a member of the Defence Committee, I would like to highlight the work undertaken by female charities, particularly by Salute Her, which is part of Forward Assist. Salute Her is a unique charity that offers and provides support to all three services. Does the Minister agree that, to some degree, women service leavers are a hidden population with certain unmet needs? Will the Ministry commit to working with me to tackle the problems faced by women in the armed forces today?
Johnny Mercer
I thank my hon. Friend for her sterling work. I also thank groups such as Forward Assist for their work on this. I am clear that there are some very good veterans provisions in this country, but there are areas where we need to do a lot better. For example, the experiences of many females who serve are still not what I would like them to be and similarly with females who leave. I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to continue my work with Forward Assist. I have seen the work that it has done recently. We are absolutely determined to make this the best country in the world in which to be an armed forces veteran—both for females and males—and we are determined to continue our work on this.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab) [V]
The Wigston review of inappropriate behaviours was published in July 2019 and estimated that it would take from five to 10 years to make a measurable difference. Why then is a review taking place of the Wigston review that was published just over a year ago? Why are charities, community interest companies and external stakeholders excluded from this review of a review?
Johnny Mercer
The reason we are doing that is very clear. I am aware that, within Government, we are very good at doing reviews, but seeing the impact of those reviews in the real world is something else. What I have asked to do with the Wigston review is to find out where we are with it one year on. The review was not for external organisations; it was an internal report that addressed some serious shortcomings. This review is very clearly shining a light on the Department, showing where we are doing well and where we are doing not so well, and I would be more than happy to share that with the hon. Lady.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
I believe that Sunderland recruits more people into the Army than any other city in the country, so consequently has a lot more issues and high demand for services to veterans. Will the Minister join me in thanking the excellent work of Veterans in Crisis in Sunderland, which does incredibly important work in this area? Will the Government pledge to look at providing more financial support from central Government for services to veterans?
Johnny Mercer
I pay tribute to Sunderland for the extraordinary commitment that it has made to this nation’s defence. We are undoubtedly going through a transition at this time in terms of veterans’ care. For too long we have over-relied on the third sector, and that responsibility is slowly shifting towards the state. I am comfortable that we are meeting that demand at the moment, but it is a dynamic process and I am more than happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss the case in her constituency.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
In January this year, the Minister promised to meet Combat Stress and other organisations to assist with their funding that had been cut. What extra assessment has he made since the start of covid on the risks of serious mental health problems among our veterans?
Johnny Mercer
I thank the hon. Lady for her interest in this matter. I speak with the service charities on an almost daily basis, and, as I said in my previous answer, there is no doubt that, when it comes to veterans’ care, a shift is going on in this country at the moment from an over-reliance on the third sector to the state stepping up and assuming that responsibility, which is what I wanted. We have the transition liaison programme and the complex treatment service. There is a very small cohort of people who require a high-intensity service that will come on line later this year. I am absolutely determined to ensure that those three streams, as a pathway, are world leaders in veterans’ mental health care. I am monitoring the figures coming in on a daily basis. We are doing pretty well on meeting our timelines, but obviously there is always more work to do.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
In June, the Office for National Statistics reported that almost one in five adults is likely to be experiencing some form of depression during the covid-19 pandemic. Given that service and veterans charities have reported an increase in demand since lockdown, and building on the previous answer, what steps is the Department taking to ensure that every veteran, all serving personnel and every service family member receive the support they need during this very difficult time?
Johnny Mercer
I am acutely aware of the challenges around the denudation of the third sector at this time and the other challenges it faces. I have talked about the veterans mental health care programme, and it is worth mentioning as well that we are looking to launch a strategy with the NHS later this year that clearly highlights a care pathway for service personnel and their families as they go through life: before they join, when they are serving and, crucially, what to expect afterwards, so it is a seamless pathway that both veterans and their families and service personnel can understand, but also that I can use to hold the NHS to account. It provides some wonderful services and I am determined to make sure that continues.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
Wesley McDonnell, a 35-year-old veteran, decided to take his own life in the park opposite my home. This brave man served and defended our nation for almost 20 years and, sadly, there are still many others like him. Can the Minister please commit to further improve the spirit of the armed forces covenant by tasking the MOD to develop a health and wellbeing pathway, including the assessment, diagnosis and commissioning of the mental health needs of our brave men and women prior to discharge so that they have the treatment ready?
Johnny Mercer
I thank the hon. Lady for her question and let me be absolutely clear on veteran suicide: any veteran suicide is a tragedy for the individual and for their family, but also for us as an institution. We want people to go away from their time in service enhanced, not damaged, by it. We have got a job of work to do, and we have made significant progress over the past few years; by January, for example, mandatory mental health training will be delivered in every unit on an annual basis—that has never happened before. Through that, alongside a lot of our work with the Royal Foundation, we are changing the environment in which we find ourselves in delivering mental healthcare, resilience and fitness for our people. There is always more to do, but, working with partners, I am determined we will get there.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
The MOD is developing protective measures to rebut, contest and respond to foreign hostile state activity against UK interests at home and abroad. We continue to work with others in Her Majesty’s Government, including the National Cyber Security Centre, to ensure a fused approach. We take the threat seriously, as demonstrated by the £1.9 billion of cyber spending announced alongside the national cyber security strategy.
David Linden
A second wave of coronavirus could be accompanied by a second wave of covid-19 disinformation, which, if not properly dealt with, could lead to an impact on the uptake in vaccine and ultimately endanger life. What steps are the Government taking to improve the UK’s preparedness against further disinformation and are they co-operating with online platforms to curb the distribution of this material in such circumstances?
Mr Wallace
The Government take disinformation incredibly seriously; that is to say that we focus on disinformation, not misinformation. Disinformation is deliberately laid, often by hostile states, to subvert us or undermine our policy. It is, however, a difficult subject to deal with given how it often uses its agents to deliver that into the mainstream, or indeed through the deep web and into the surface web. That is a challenge; it is not easy for either local government or national Government, and I am sure that the Scottish Government find that similarly challenging. Where we find there to be disinformation, we will of course use all measures that we can to ensure that it is disrupted or that it is pointed out to the audience that it is disinformation. However, I must be very clear that it is not for us to take a view on mainstream media, or on any other type of media’s slant on Government policy. That is the freedom of the press that we enjoy and we are here to protect.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (James Heappey)
During the 2019-20 recruiting year the armed forces hit 93% of our inflow target despite covid disrupting the end of the year; recruitment was, however, 31% up from 2018-19. While the armed forces are doing excellent work to continue that success, covid has had an initial impact on training throughflow this year. In the short term, therefore, we expect to see lower throughflow, but early signs are that this will be mitigated by improved retention and, very encouragingly, a good flow of rejoiners.
Jerome Mayhew
As a response to covid, we have seen the unemployment figures start to rise, and that is particularly reflected in the 18 to 24-year-old demographic. Do the Government agree that this is an opportunity to recruit, and perhaps even to meet our full-time trained requirement for the first time since the year 2000? Does the Minister agree that a career in the armed forces represents an excellent career life choice, and that now is a better time than ever to sign up?
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State recently said that
“the greatest asset we have is not our tanks or our aeroplanes, it’s people.”
Yet under the last 10 years of Conservative Government, the numbers of personnel in each of the tri-services have declined. With this in mind, will the Minister make it a priority under the integrated review to address the failure to maintain the strength of our armed forces?
James Heappey
The hon. Gentleman tempts me to pre-empt the decisions of the Prime Minister and the integrated review. However, I can assure him that recruiting targets remain as they were, and that while the sun is shining we will be making hay.
Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Jeremy Quin)
Throughout the pandemic, orders have continued to be made and placed and suppliers paid. The MOD has to date paid £123 million in interim payments to ensure that critical defence outputs can continue uninterrupted, and engaged directly with 600 of its critical suppliers. In addition, as part of the Treasury fiscal stimulus programme, an additional £200 million of funding has been allocated to improve the defence estate accommodation.
Mr Fysh [V]
Short-term support is great, but companies such as Leonardo in my constituency need long-term certainty on programmes as they fight back from covid. What can the Minister do to provide such certainty?
Jeremy Quin
My hon. Friend is a great advocate for Leonardo and for military helicopters. The publication of the integrated review and, in particular, the defence and security industrial strategy will provide a great deal of certainty. In addition, in the case of Leonardo, through our strategic partnering arrangement we are establishing a joint working group to support future capability and understanding.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
The Department keeps all threats to the UK and its allies under regular review, including those from private and mercenary forces.
Alicia Kearns [V]
My right hon. Friend will agree that many of our adversaries deploy mercenaries and private contractors as cartels to achieve their nefarious goals around the world, particularly in Libya, where the Wagner group acts as a proxy for the Russian state. What steps are being taken in the integrated review, and also multilaterally, to assess and combat this threat?
Mr Wallace
Our adversaries’ use of mercenaries and proxies is growing and undermining stability in the middle east, north Africa and more widely. It is not just Russia’s widely reported use of the Wagner proxy military group in Libya, which of course we condemn, that is causing this instability. We see other actors such as Iran behaving in this way. The UK condemns all destabilising mercenary and proxy military activity. I am afraid I cannot comment on the individual actions we take to counter this threat, as to do so would prejudice their effectiveness.
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
Since the start of the pandemic, Defence has provided a range of support to Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands, Ascension, Saint Helena and our overseas territories in the Caribbean. HMS Medway and RFA Argus remain in theatre and are standing by to provide logistical and medical support, whether in relation to covid-19 or to providing disaster relief during the hurricane season.
Julie Marson
Afghan interpreters have provided an invaluable service to our armed forces, saving the lives of many British soldiers. Will my right hon. Friend update the House on the Government’s progress on their commitments to the Afghan interpreters?
Mr Wallace
The Home Secretary and I announced at the weekend that the criteria for interpreters to relocate to the UK will be expanded to include those who resigned on or after 1 May 2006 with 18 months or more service on the frontline in Helmand, so that more may come with their families to build a new life in the UK. In addition, the Home Secretary and I committed to look even further at those criteria, and to look at where people suffer intimidation, to see whether those thresholds are in the right place as the peace deal progresses in Afghanistan. Standing by these people is an honourable thing to do. They helped to keep our men and women safe, and this is long overdue.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
It has been the longstanding position of successive Governments not to comment on the operations activity of the UK special forces, as to do so would put personnel and operations at risk. All military operations are overseen and scrutinised by Ministers, who are accountable to this Parliament.
Dave Doogan
Special forces deserve the very best technological support. Swedish technology company Saab announced in July that it intends to establish a centre in the UK for forward combat air systems. The optimal location for that facility is in east-central Scotland, where Saab can benefit not only from clustering with leading industrial partners, such as Leonardo, Babcock and Raytheon, but from our world-class universities and more widely with BAE and Thales in Glasgow. What steps will the Secretary of State take to work with Saab to help it establish in Scotland?
Mr Wallace
An interesting angle for special forces. I am not sure we are going to put a special forces base in Angus. We absolutely want the best technology. We recognise that international partners can also bring that technology, and when we work together in partnership, recognising that British prosperity is as important as anything else, we can get a good result for our forces, who get the best kit. It is also good for our economy, so that we get the good jobs and skills that we desperately need around the UK and ensure that the science base is strong and able to compete post Brexit.
Margaret Ferrier
The current Government’s adoption of a “no comment” policy prevents any parliamentary scrutiny of the role of UK special forces in defence and security strategy, even when their involvement in operations becomes the subject of media coverage. Will the Secretary of State commit to a review of the “no comment” policy for UK special forces, and enable parliamentary oversight of their activities, placing them on a similar footing to MI5, MI6 and GCHQ?
Mr Wallace
As I say, it is a long-held policy of many Governments not to comment on special forces. They are accountable to me and to the law, and where we see any issues, Ministers will of course intervene. I will not commit to a further review; that is a longstanding policy. Our special forces do an absolutely amazing job saving lives around the world and protecting our citizens. They operate in the covert world to achieve that effect and make sure their lives are not put at risk.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (James Heappey)
Some 1,800 Army reserves were mobilised as part of Operation Rescript, the MOD’s contribution to the covid response. From distributing personal protective equipment in the NHS to delivering mobile testing units and helping build the Nightingale hospitals, our fantastic reservists and the unique skills that they bring have been invaluable in helping the country manage the covid pandemic.
Dr Mullan
I want to begin by thanking my constituent Josh Grant and others from Crewe and Nantwich who were mobilised as part of the Mercian regiment and were willing to step up and help our country at a time of crisis. What can we learn from the use of remote mobilisation as part of our efforts, and what more can we do to support employers and reservists whose deployment time is reduced from what they have already agreed with their employers?
James Heappey
I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to his constituent, and I thank him for his service. As my hon. Friend will appreciate, there is a balance between making the reserve as easily deployable as possible and reservists’ not unreasonable expectation to have some certainty about the duration of their mobilisation. My fantastic predecessor has now accessorised some ermine with his combats. Lord Brigadier Lancaster will be conducting a reserve forces review over the coming months, in which exactly these sorts of issues will receive his attention.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Johnny Mercer)
We rightly expect the highest standards of our service personnel, and we also owe them justice and fairness. We have introduced the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill to tackle vexatious claims and end the cycle of reinvestigations of our armed forces personnel and veterans. The Second Reading of the Bill will be on Wednesday, and I look forward to the House’s support.
Mark Pawsey
Just as the Government launched their consultation on the Bill, my constituent who had served in the armed forces came to see me. He was concerned to ensure that no service personnel or veterans should be prosecuted for carrying out what they had been trained for. Can the Minister provide him with that reassurance?
Johnny Mercer
I can categorically guarantee and assure all service personnel that, should they operate within the law, which is very clear and well understood, this Government will move beyond the warm words of so many before them and actually legislate to ensure that they are protected from the vexatious and industrial nature of the claims of the past few years. We are very clear, however, that uniform is no hiding place for those who cannot operate within the boundaries we ask them to operate in. The Bill is proportionate and fair in that respect.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
I would like to make a statement to the House on recent reports regarding an approach taken by my Department with a media outlet. Managing information is challenging, particularly where hostile states use disinformation to subvert our security interests and our policymaking. As the House will be aware, all Government media and communication professionals must abide by the Government Communication Service’s propriety guidance and the civil service code. The Ministry of Defence is no different. However, I have been deeply concerned that those standards are alleged not always to have been met in the Department. I am treating the allegation with the utmost seriousness. The Ministry of Defence I lead will treat outlets with fairness and impartiality. I am today writing to Defence communicators across the MOD and all services to emphasise that point. I have therefore asked former director general and communications professional Tom Kelly to lead an independent review to look into the allegations that have been made and establish what underlies them. I will report back to the House once the review has been concluded.
Edward Timpson
The Rolls-Royce distributed generation systems plant in Winsford provides mission-critical power generation for our armed forces and is now expanding into other sectors, including the rail industry, to help to maintain its 50 highly skilled jobs, as well as another 100 across the supply chain. Will my right hon. Friend congratulate the Rolls-Royce workforce on their sterling support of our defence capability, as well as perhaps recommending their services to other Government Departments?
Mr Wallace
I am grateful to the Rolls-Royce workforce for their important support for defence and, indeed, during the covid outbreak. The Winsford distributed generation systems plant provides crucial capabilities to our armed forces. I am impressed by the company’s innovative solutions to the challenges we face, for example on sustainability. It is an excellent example of UK engineering and of high-quality jobs. I look forward to seeing Rolls-Royce developing its private and public sector customer base.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
The House is grateful to the Secretary of State for his impromptu statement. I wonder whether he could place the terms of reference for the Tom Kelly review in the House of Commons Library. Can he confirm this afternoon when he expects that review to be completed?
Just 79 people were invited to yesterday’s battle of Britain commemoration inside Westminster Abbey, rather than the 2,200 planned. Remembrance Day ceremonies in seven weeks’ time are unthinkable without so many of those who have served in our armed forces. Will the Secretary of State say what special guidance he will give to make sure ceremonies at cenotaphs across the country can go ahead safely and respectfully?
Mr Wallace
On the first point from the shadow Defence Secretary, I will of course let him know and put in the Library of the House the terms of reference for the review and when we expect it to be completed.
On remembrance, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is the lead. However, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is an incredibly important for our Department and our men and women in the armed forces to contribute to it. I am working with the DDCMS to make sure we get that guidance. He is right to highlight the issue and I thank him for doing so. Of course, some in the veterans community are the most elderly and vulnerable at present, and we have to ensure that whatever we do we protect them in services of remembrance. I took part in VE Day by ringing a number of veterans who could not attend those events. Talking to numerous second world war veterans is quite a moving experience. One raised a problem about being able to get to an optician and it was useful to ring his local regimental association to try to get him that help. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight this issue. As soon as we have worked out the plans, I will share them with the House.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
Mr Wallace
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out the malign activity of the Iran state in using both proxies and, indeed, the IRGC directly either to harass shipping going about its lawful business or to enable terrorist groups in the region. It does not help any of the peace we seek in that region; nor does it help Iran to join the table of civilised nations, which it aspires to join. The IR will look exactly at those things—at threat; defined around threat—whether that is Iranian malign activity, Russian activity on Europe’s borders or, indeed, terrorist threats around the world. It is important that that leads the review. That is what I have committed to, and right in the middle of that will be Iran and the IRGC.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab) [V]
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Johnny Mercer)
On unanswered communications, I will have an investigation into that this afternoon, but look, there has never been more help available for veterans and service personnel. Each individual suicide is a tragedy, and each one I take personally, but we have to be very careful about consistently driving home this narrative that there is no help available. Should we make it easier to access? Should we have better care pathways? Of course, but the reality is that there is help available and people must speak out.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con) [V]
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Jeremy Quin)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the RAF must have the very best capabilities to meet future threats. This is naturally a focus of the integrated review, and I can assure him that Lancashire’s critical role in combat air, and the skills it represents, are very much recognised and understood.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Jeremy Quin
As the hon. Gentleman knows, although that road runs through MOD land, it is an adopted road. Having said that, MOD contractors have filled in potholes and cleared ditches and culverts, and we will see what we can do. I am more than happy to meet the hon. Gentleman.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (James Heappey)
Where to begin? Specialist personnel such as engineers, medical clinicians, logistics planners, advisers, and general duty soldiers and drivers have carried out a variety of tasks to help tackle the covid-19 outbreak in London. They have distributed personal protective equipment; critical care transfer teams for the London ambulance service have assisted in the movement of patients; and they have driven ventilators around London, as well as helping with testing. Finally, they helped build the amazing first Nightingale hospital at the ExCeL.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) [V]
Mr Wallace
We have already started a market engagement exercise and have had a healthy response. I intend to announce the procurement timetable for the warships in due course, after market testing has completed. We intend to encourage international partners to work alongside UK firms for the bid, which will build on the success of Type 31.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
Johnny Mercer
I am delighted to update my hon. Friend. Six months ago we signed a £25 million contract to digitise all the services that Veterans UK provides. I am clear that too many of our people have a poor experience, and the people in Veterans UK have to work in very difficult conditions with lots of paper records and so on. We are putting a lot of money into digitising that, and the experience will be replicated in an application that people can download to their smartphones, and vets care will be in the hands of every veteran in the United Kingdom.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
Johnny Mercer
I thank the hon. Lady for her continued work on this issue. I am clear that getting veterans into employment is the single biggest factor that improves their life chances when they leave. We now have a system that is light years away from where it used to be. We can always do more. We are bringing in another manifesto pledge to ensure that there is a guaranteed interview scheme for veterans in the civil service, and I am always open to ideas to expand that where we can.
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
Jeremy Quin
My hon. Friend is a great advocate for her constituents. We have recently received a bid from the council for that asset of community value and will be contacting it to discuss the offer and the value it would deliver for taxpayers.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Mr Wallace
The right hon. Gentleman will know that one of the challenges for our yards is not that they cannot make ships: it is simply that there is feast and famine. Sometimes we go from a pipeline that is full to a pipeline that is empty, and it is incredibly important that we schedule our shipbuilding to make sure we keep as much productivity and throughput in our yards as possible. On the point of the Fleet Solid Support ship, as I have said, we have started discussions and the competition will be issued. He will know that the previous competition was stopped. I am keen to make sure that we get it right for our Royal Navy, and the right hon. Gentleman should wait for the competition to be issued.
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con)
James Heappey
I absolutely would. Hansard will show an earlier pitch for joining the regular armed forces, and now it will show a pitch for joining the reserve armed forces. Over the last few months, we have needed all the skills and experience that our reservists bring, and as the integrated review seeks to draw ever more on the expertise of those serving in the reserve as we expand our capability into new domains, now is a great time for someone to go down to their local reserve centre and join.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Mr Wallace
The hon. Member is wrong to make a connection between morale and numbers in that way. In my experience, and with the soldiers and sailors I have been meeting recently, morale is high. In my experience in serving, morale is mainly about when someone is used to do things usefully and when they are there on operations. He may like to reflect on the operational decline currently of our activity in our forces, which may well have some effect on morale.
On the issue of numbers, it is important not to reduce any armed forces debate to numbers alone. We need the size of the armed forces to be fit to meet the threat. It may be more. It may be less, but the key thing is to make sure we meet the threat and invest in those men and women we have who are serving.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
Johnny Mercer
I pay tribute to the men and women who work at Veterans UK. They have been working with historical records—paper records—for a long time. It could be a fairly unloved part of what the Government do. We are completely changing that and digitising all these records. It is our ambition that veterans’ care is in the palm of people’s hands, on a smartphone application by the end of this Government, and we will make sure that this is the best country in the world in which to be a veteran.
Mr Speaker
In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I suspend the House for three minutes.
Covid-19 Update
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on coronavirus. This deadly virus continues to advance across the world. The World Health Organisation has confirmed that the number of new cases in Europe is now higher than during the peak in March. Here, the latest Office for National Statistics figures indicate 6,000 new infections a day—almost double the previous week.
As the chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser said earlier today, we are seeing a rise in cases across all age groups. That pattern is emerging across the entirety of our United Kingdom. Earlier this afternoon, the Prime Minister held discussions with the First Ministers of the devolved Administrations and the Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland to make sure that, wherever possible, we are united in our efforts to drive this virus down.
We know that the epidemic is currently doubling around every seven days and that, if we continue on that trajectory, we could see 50,000 cases a day by mid-October, so there can be no doubt that this virus is accelerating. We must all play our part in stopping the spread.
I would like to update the House on decisions the Government have taken so far. The first line of defence is, of course, the social distancing that every single one of us has a responsibility to follow. That includes the basics—hands, face and space, and the rule of six—and a crucial part of that is people self-isolating if they are at risk of passing on the virus. People who have tested positive and their close contacts must self-isolate. That is the primary way that we, together, break the chains of transmission.
I know that self-isolation can be tough for many people, especially if they are not in a position to work from home. I do not want anyone having to worry about their finances while they are doing the right thing, so we will introduce a new £500 isolation support payment for people on low incomes who cannot work because they have tested positive or who are asked to self-isolate by NHS Test and Trace. It will start next Monday. It will apply directly in England. The UK Government will be providing funding through the Barnett formula to the devolved Administrations so that similar support can be offered to people in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
As we are strengthening our support for those who self-isolate, we propose to strengthen the sanctions for those who do not. The vast majority of people who are asked to self-isolate do, but the rules are so important that we must ensure that nobody breaks them. We are therefore proposing a new legal duty to self-isolate, again for people who test positive or who are asked to do so by NHS Test and Trace. That is backed by fines of up to £10,000 for repeat offences and serious breaches.
We will step up enforcement too. NHS Test and Trace will make regular checks on those who are self-isolating, and we will crack down on employers who try to prevent staff from following the rules. Over the past few months, self-isolation has been instrumental in breaking the chain and blunting the force of this virus. We know that it works. With winter ahead, we will support everyone to do what is right to help stop the spread of the virus.
The next line of defence is testing and contact tracing. We are doing more testing per head than almost any other major nation. Our daily testing capacity is now at a record high of 253,521, and it continues to grow. On Thursday, we announced that two new Lighthouse labs will be set up in Newcastle and Bracknell, increasing capacity further. As the House knows, alongside that record expansion, demand has gone up, too, so we need to prioritise the tests for those who need them most to save lives, to protect the most vulnerable and to make sure that our health and care services and our schools can operate safely.
Today, we have published our list of where tests are being prioritised, setting out how we will make sure tests are allocated where they are needed most: first, to support acute clinical care; second, to support and protect people in care homes; third, NHS staff, including GPs and pharmacists; fourth, targeted testing for outbreak management and surveillance studies; fifth, testing for teaching staff with symptoms, so we can keep schools and classes open; and then the general public when they have symptoms, prioritising those in areas of high incidence. I want to reinforce this important point: the system relies on people coming forward for tests if—and only if—they have symptoms of coronavirus or have been specifically advised to by a health professional. The testing capacity we have is valuable and we must together prioritise it for the people who need it the most.
The next part of our defence is local action. We have been vigilant in monitoring the data and putting in place targeted local measures so that we can come down hard on the virus wherever we see it emerging. In the summer, when the virus was in retreat, we were able to relax some of the measures that we had put in place, but now as the virus is spreading once more we have had to act.
On Thursday, I updated the House on the changes we are making in parts of the north-east, and on Friday we introduced new rules for parts of the north-west, West Yorkshire and the midlands. We have seen some concerning rates of infection in those areas. Liverpool, for instance, now has more than 120 cases per 100,000 population, and in Warrington it is about 100. As a result, working with local councils, we are putting in place stronger restrictions to protect local people. In parts of Lancashire, Merseyside, Warrington and Halton, we are putting in place new measures from tomorrow. As with our strategy overall, our goal is to protect education and employment as much as possible, while bearing down on the virus. Residents should not socialise with people outside their own households or support bubble. Hospitality will be restricted to table service only and operating hours will be restricted, so venues must close between 10 pm and 5 am. From tomorrow in Wolverhampton, Oadby and Wigston and the whole of Bradford, Kirklees and Calderdale, people should not socialise outside their household or support bubble.
We know from experience that local action can work when local communities come together to follow the rules, to tackle the virus and to keep themselves safe. I know how hard that is. We are constantly looking to how we can ensure measures bear down on the virus as much as possible, while protecting lives and livelihoods.
I have heard the concerns about the impact of local action on childcare arrangements. For many, informal childcare arrangements are a lifeline, without which they could not do their jobs. Today, I am able to announce a new exemption for looking after children under the age of 14 or vulnerable adults where that is necessary for caring purposes. That covers both formal and informal arrangements. It does not allow for playdates or parties, but it does mean that a consistent childcare relationship that is vital for somebody to get to work is allowed.
I would like to thank colleagues from across the House, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan) and the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) and my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) for working with us on this important issue. I hope the change will provide clarity and comfort to many people who are living with these local restrictions. It shows the benefit of cross-party working across the House and listening to concerns as we all do our best to tackle this dreadful disease together.
The virus is spreading. We are at a tipping point. I set out today the measures the Government are taking so far. We are working right now on what further measures may be necessary, and the Prime Minister will update the House tomorrow with any more action that we need to take. This is a moment where we, once again, must come together to tackle this deadly disease. I commend this statement to the House.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome advance sight of the Secretary of State’s statement, and we particularly welcome the action that he has taken on childcare. There can be no doubt that the presentations that we saw today from the chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser were stark and deeply concerning. The Secretary of State yesterday described this, and he repeated it today, as a tipping point. I agree that we are at a perilous moment.
The exponential growth in the virus cannot be ignored. This virus takes lives, and it leaves many with long-term debilitating conditions. Every reasonable action must be taken to save lives, minimise harm and keep our children in school. That means a suppression strategy to drive infections down, so will the Secretary of State reject those siren voices telling him that the virus has lost potency or that we should let it rip through the herd while the vulnerable shield?
We support the local restrictions that the Secretary of State has had to impose, including in Chorley, Mr Speaker, and we understand why he has made that decision. Neither he nor I came into politics to place upon individuals a heavy burden of curtailments on our freedoms, and while we, as the official Opposition, would always welcome greater parliamentary scrutiny of the restrictions, we will continue to work constructively on a cross-party basis where restrictions are necessary to arrest the spread of this virus.
May I also say to the Secretary of State, ever so politely of course, that the tone of his remarks yesterday rather gave the impression that he was blaming people for breaking the rules and allowing the virus to grow? The reality is that people have done everything that they were asked to do. They have missed birthday celebrations, weddings and funerals. They have sent their children back to school, quite rightly. They have gone back to work. They have done what they were asked to do; in return, Ministers were supposed to fix test, trace and isolate, so that we could, in the words of his own Government adverts,
“get back to the things we love.”
Before the summer, the Government commissioned the Academy of Medical Sciences to scenario plan. It modelled that the R value could rise to 1.7 in September—that is what Imperial College currently estimates it to be—and it recommended significantly expanding the capacity of the test, trace and isolate programme to cope with increasing demands over the winter. Ministers were warned, but pillar 1 and pillar 2 testing capacity did not increase significantly over the summer.
In recent weeks, only half of all tests have been received in less than 24 hours. The Secretary of State has repeated his point about asymptomatic people asking for tests. Will he publish the pillar 2 data, which breaks down how many of the people asking for those tests were symptomatic and how many were asymptomatic? Many parents report going to walk-in centres with their sick children when they themselves had no symptoms and being given a test. Was that a national policy and has that national policy been abandoned?
We welcome the recognition that people need financial support to isolate. We have been saying that for months, but, as I understand it, it is available only to those low-paid workers who are also on benefits and not to all low-paid workers, so will the Secretary of State consider expanding the eligibility criteria?
We have always said that when testing breaks down, tracing breaks down and the virus gets out of control. We are now facing a second wave of infection. We do not want a second wave of ministerial mistakes. All of us want to avoid a further national lockdown. Lockdowns or circuit breaks exact a heavy social and economic price, especially on the poorest and more vulnerable, but controlling the virus and protecting the economy are linked objectives, not in conflict with one another.
I understand that the Secretary of State will tell us that we have to anticipate the Prime Minister’s statement, but can he confirm that during a lockdown, if we have one, he will use the time wisely, expand NHS lab capacity, put public health teams in the lead on contact tracing, quickly assess the university pilots on saliva testing, and validate polymerase chain reaction pool testing, so that when those lockdown restrictions are lifted we can contain the virus in the future?
I welcome what the Secretary of State said about prioritising NHS staff, care workers and teachers, but can he clarify why he has issued guidance to hospital trusts placing restrictions on the numbers of tests that they can carry out, and how he will protect care homes? According to reports today, many care homes have had to wait over two weeks for their test results, and data from Public Health England shows that more than 200 care homes have had an outbreak of covid in the last two weeks. Will he ensure that no one is discharged into a care home without having a covid test? Given where the virus is, what is his advice to the shielding community? What protections is he putting in place for those from black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, given that there are disproportionate numbers from those communities in intensive care units today?
None of us wants to see another lockdown or circuit break, and we will of course understand if one becomes necessary, but test, trace and isolate should have been fixed. That failure has left us vulnerable and exposed. Now we must act with speed to save lives and minimise harm.
Matt Hancock
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his constructive approach in these difficult times. He and I agree that the strategy of suppressing the virus while protecting the economy and education is the right one. In so doing, it is important to act fast so as not to have to act bigger later. I also agree that no one in this House came into office to put in place restrictions like these. He asked about the importance of people following the rules that we have put in place. It is vital that all people follow the rules. The vast majority have done so throughout but, critically, enough have not, meaning that in many cases we have had to make the rules mandatory, rather than relying on people’s sense of civic duty. That is the fundamental judgment behind making self-isolation mandatory, as I announced in the statement.
The hon. Gentleman asked about testing. Of course, we have record testing capacity right now—a record 233,000 tests were done on Friday—and lab capacity will continue to grow. He also asked about the NHS testing capacity, which will also continue to grow. In fact, I had a meeting about that earlier today with Simon Stevens, the head of NHS England. The hon. Gentleman asked about pool testing and saliva testing, which are just two of the many new testing capabilities that we are bringing to bear. He also asked me to ensure that there will be no admissions to care homes without a test. That is our policy: not just no discharges from hospital into care homes without a test, but no admission from anywhere into care homes without a test. That was reiterated in the social care winter plan that we set out on Friday.
I suppose that at the heart of the official Opposition’s response, and at the heart of my response to the hon. Gentleman, is the fact that we are united in wanting to tackle this virus, and in sending the message to everyone across the country that it is critical that we all follow the rules and play our part so that we can suppress the virus while protecting, as much as possible, the things that we love.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
I support the measures outlined by the Health Secretary, which regrettably are both necessary and proportionate. Last week, on World Patient Safety Day, the WHO announced a charter for health worker protection, which asks all WHO member states to commit not only to having adequate supplies of personal protective equipment and mental health support, but to ensuring that there is zero tolerance of violence against health workers. Will he commit the Government to signing up to the charter so that, as we go into a second wave, all our brave frontline workers know that this Government and this House stand four-square behind them?
Matt Hancock
Yes, I will happily sign up to the proposals that my right hon. Friend has set out. As the House well knows, his long-standing and international work on patient safety is very impressive. We must ensure that in these difficult times we protect our care workers and frontline staff—including, if I may say so, the staff at the testing centres—and that we reiterate once again our commitment to patient safety.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. As the chief medical officer and chief scientific advisers said this morning, the UK is in danger of losing control, as we have seen happen in many countries in Europe. As the Secretary of State has said, we could be facing 50,000 new cases a day by mid-October, leading to about 200 deaths a day by mid-November. No one should be in any doubt that it is a mistake to think that the virus has changed and that it will not kill people if we get back to where we were in April.
I agree utterly with the Secretary of State that we need to take action now, and that action is personal; every single person has the responsibility to stick to the rules—to wear a face covering, wash their hands and keep their distance. I remind Members in this House, because I have been watching it from outside, that that is not always what is on show in this Chamber, and we all have a responsibility to set an example. That responsibility extends to self-isolating, whether we have symptoms, we are proven, we are a contact or we have returned from a high-risk country. If we are meant to be isolating, we need to do it. I really welcome the fact that the Government are finally putting in place financial support for people on low incomes, who might be tempted not to isolate because they simply do not have any other opportunities to feed their family.
However, it is crucial that we have a fast and responsive test and trace system, so I have a couple of questions for the Secretary of State. In recent weeks, he has talked about aiming to have 500,000 tests a day by the end of October. Given the surge we are facing, does he envisage being able to accelerate that and bring it forward? Secondly, on 8 and 15 September he committed to me that he would be increasing funding to expand NHS testing, but, as we heard from the shadow Secretary of State, NHS trusts in England have been told that funding is capped and they are not to expand covid testing. Surely this is resource that we want to use and make available.
Matt Hancock
I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Lady’s comments about the need for action across the UK. We have seen in Scotland, as in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, that the number of cases has, sadly, risen sharply. I welcome her physically back to the Chamber, in demonstrating this unity of purpose across the four nations of the UK. If we can bring forward the goal of 500,000 tests per day from the end of October, of course we will do so; we are pushing that as hard as we can and are on track to meet that commitment. As she says, that is for across the UK, so it includes the tests done by the Scottish NHS. I know that conversations have taken place between the NHS in Scotland and the NHS in England to work on making that happen. We are expanding NHS testing, including the funding. In the funding letter that went out to the NHS for the second half of the financial year—for the cover in winter—we set out that that includes the commitment to support financially the testing done in the NHS in England.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
I welcome the measures my right hon. Friend has announced today, as he seems to be getting the balance absolutely right, and I praise him for the job he is doing. However, we have to remember that there are huge regional variations in the impact of the virus at the moment and many parts of the country have much lower infection rates. There are huge consequences of this virus for people in our communities, including on their mental health, and, in particular, for the younger generation, who are paying a very heavy price. Given those regional variations, may I say, in the full knowledge of the pressures he is facing, that I do not believe the case for further national measures has yet been made?
Matt Hancock
There is an important balance between the measures we need to take across the country as a whole, and the further and stronger measures in local areas. My right hon. Friend will have seen, particularly in the past week, that we have expanded some of those local interventions to cover bigger geographies, but he is right to say that there are some parts of the country where, thankfully, the number of cases is still very low. So the balance between what we do nationally and what we do locally is as important as the balance in terms of what we do overall.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I am sure the Secretary of State will agree that one of the greatest tragedies of the first wave of this dreadful virus was the loss of life in and the impact on our social care sector, and we must learn the lessons from that as we head into a second wave. While he has emphasised in the media and in his statement the prioritisation of testing in care homes, could he explain why a number of care homes are still reporting a two-week delay in receiving test results? Will he clarify whether the prioritisation also includes staff providing care in people’s homes?
Matt Hancock
Care home testing is incredibly important. We have brought down some of the response times, and I am glad to report to the House that, since last week, when we debated the very sharp rise in demand, including among asymptomatic people, that demand has come down somewhat, and the pressures are a little lower on the testing system as a whole. That does not mean that we do not want to increase capacity further—of course we do. It is very important that we have tests available for all vulnerable people, whether they live at home or in a care home.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
The scientific evidence is that covid is detectable by test within seven days of someone being infected, so why should people who have been made to self-isolate not be tested seven days after a possible infection and released if they test negative?
Matt Hancock
The incubation period before which the virus can present itself is still estimated to require 14 days of self-isolation. If we could bring that figure down, I would be the first to be pleased to do so. As with our decision to take to 10 days the period for which somebody who has tested positive must self-isolate, this is a critical point, and we must rely on the scientific evidence. If my right hon. Friend has further scientific evidence, I would be happy to look at it.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State think that a £10,000 fine will act as a disincentive to poorer people getting a test?
Matt Hancock
We have put in place the extra £500, in addition to other income that people are getting, to support people on low incomes to self-isolate. If someone who is on a low income has symptoms and wants to know whether they have the virus, the result of having a positive test is that they will get the extra £500, and then of course they have to self-isolate. I am confident that people will come forward and do not only the right thing for society but the right thing for them, to find out the cause of their illness if they have symptoms.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for the extra £2.5 million for Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust and the extra money for the social care system in Worcestershire. Can I clarify what the advice is these days for people who would normally have fetched up at A&E? Is it to call 111 in every instance?
Matt Hancock
Yes. We are moving to a system where the advice is to call 111 First and then go to A&E, or call 999 if it is an emergency and you need an ambulance. That system will not only help people to be triaged for the right treatment, which may be to see a GP, go to an urgent treatment centre or go to A&E. It will also help the emergency department to know that people are coming. The combination of the two is critical. We are rolling this out over the next couple of months, and we aim to have it in place across the country by 1 December.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Despite what the Secretary of State has said today, we are still hearing myriad stories of people—our constituents—being unable to get tested. The worst story I have heard is a constituent who was told to travel 600 miles to Aberdeen to get a test. Why is that the case, when we are constantly told by Ministers that there is no problem?
Matt Hancock
Nobody has addressed the problems and challenges in the testing system more than me. We need to resolve those problems, as we have in very large part resolved the problem of people being sent long distances. I would love to know the example that the hon. Gentleman cites, because I am told that that problem in the system was fixed last week, and if there is a more recent example, I want to know about it.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to the expanding of testing, which is clearly key to identifying the virus and stopping its spread. I direct him to an article in The Times today about private businesses expanding testing capacity. BAE in my constituency is testing almost 6,000 employees on a weekly basis and is keen to expand that into the community. I know that my right hon. Friend has already started to engage on this issue, but I urge him to do everything he can to cut through any red tape, expand such testing as quickly as possible and use every tool at our disposal.
Matt Hancock
Of course we support businesses and others who want to get tests outside the NHS Test and Trace system; last week we published a paper on how they can go about doing that, and we encourage businesses to do that for their employees. The critical thing is that if people test positive, that data must, by law, flow to Public Health England so that we can do the necessary contact tracing and enforce the isolation that is going to be mandatory from next Monday. We strongly support that sort of action, whether it is taken by employers or, indeed, the University of Cambridge, which proposes to do the same for its students.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
Liverpool incidence rates have increased quickly and we are now on the precipice of local lockdown. There has been an increase of 247 cases on the previous week’s figures and the latest weekly rate in Liverpool is now 120 per 100,000, as the Secretary of State mentioned. What additional resources does the Secretary of State plan to provide to Liverpool and other local authorities to assist them in dealing with further localised outbreaks?
Matt Hancock
The hon. Lady asks an important question. We are putting more testing into Liverpool, notwithstanding the challenges in testing capacity, because it is exactly the sort of place where we need to put that testing. We are also bringing in £500 of support for everybody on a low income who has to self-isolate, whether they have tested positive themselves or are a contact of somebody who has tested positive and have been contacted through NHS Test and Trace. I support the hon. Lady in her work as the local representative to explain to her constituents in Liverpool, Riverside how important it is to follow the rules.
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
The whole country will recognise the unenviable choices that the Government face at this time. Whatever further measures are in contemplation for the days ahead, may I issue a plea for proportionality? Does the Secretary of State agree that human beings in a free society must have a right to some social contact as they go about their daily lives, even at this difficult time?
Matt Hancock
I agree with that 100%. We put in place support bubbles for single households—those who live alone—during the lockdown precisely for that reason. I remember having a Zoom with a whole load of people and somebody said, “I haven’t seen anybody in person for four months,” and I thought that could not be good or right. We have put in place support bubbles for single households for that purpose and of course bear such impacts in mind when we take the decisions we take.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I am sure the Secretary of State will agree that we in Kirklees and West Yorkshire are working hard as a team to meet the crisis in these uncertain times, with tens of thousands of students now moving across the country. Will he bear in mind the fact that our system relies on fit and healthy NHS staff? The crisis we are in is getting worse, and if we get a virulent flu virus this winter, which is coming soon, and that knocks out a large percentage of NHS staff, we are going to be in serious trouble. A significant percentage of NHS workers are refusing to get a flu jab; what can we do about that?
Matt Hancock
The hon. Gentleman and I have occasionally tangled across these Dispatch Boxes, but I wholeheartedly support what he said and agree with him entirely. It is policy that everybody in the NHS should get a flu jab. The NHS flu programme has already started to roll out and will shortly roll out more broadly. Although it is not mandated this year, I can see no good reason why somebody in the NHS should not get a flu jab, unless they have a very specific clinical condition. We look to all NHS staff to provide leadership in their communities by getting the flu jab. It is free for everybody who works in health and social care and they should get it.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
It was brought to my attention by parents this weekend that some Leeds City Council schools in my constituency are telling parents that if their child has an upset stomach or general malaise they need to go home, isolate and not come back to school until they have had a negative test. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is not NHS England advice, and puts unwarranted pressure on the test and trace system? Does he agree that Leeds City Council should get a grip on this immediately?
Matt Hancock
I am afraid I do agree. All councils, including Leeds City Council, should make it clear that if students have coronavirus symptoms—and we all know what they are: a new continuous cough, a temperature or a loss of taste and smell—they should come forward for a test. If they have symptoms of another illness—not coronavirus symptoms—they should not come forward for a test. We have set this out very clearly once again in the prioritisation document that we have published today, and I hope that everyone will follow it.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Schools that become aware of a covid-19 case have been encouraged to take swift action and contact the dedicated advice service introduced by Public Health England. However, several primary school heads in my constituency have reported that the service appears to be overwhelmed, with significant delays in Public Health England getting back to schools with advice. Can the Secretary of State tell me what the average waiting time is between a school contacting Public Health England and its receiving the advice that it needs?
Matt Hancock
I do not have those figures, but I would be very happy to look into specific cases, because the speed of turnaround in the instance that the hon. Gentleman describes is very important.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
My right hon. Friend and his scientific advisers are absolutely right—the virus is not getting any weaker—but doctors, including many in my constituency of South Cambridgeshire, have made great progress in the treatment of coronavirus, and social distancing means that viral loads are less, making cases less severe for many people. Can he tell me what estimate he has made of the impact of these developments on the fatality rates for those who are affected?
Matt Hancock
Yes, of course. My hon. Friend represents one of the finest hospitals not just in the country but in the world. The clinicians who work at Addenbrooke’s and across the country have improved the treatment of coronavirus. We know that treatment with dexamethasone has reduced the death rate. We know that, because of earlier oxygenation and later intubation, that has reduced the death rate. There is also progress with remdesivir. Nevertheless, while that has reduced mortality for those going into hospital, the virus remains deadly, so unfortunately we have to take measures to stop its spread, not least because we can either take measures now or we will end up with a much bigger problem, still having to take measures later.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
Top-rated medical research has continuously linked vitamin D levels with covid incidence. In Norway, where people have high amounts, cases are rare, whereas here, most Brits are deficient. It is rarely found in food, and the main source—sunlight—is about to disappear, with a possible winter NHS crisis on the way. Will the Secretary of State follow the science, as there is no vaccine in sight, and seek to prescribe supplements on the NHS, or at least run a public information campaign? People need something positive now that the nights are drawing in.
Matt Hancock
Vitamin D is one of the many things that we have looked into, to see whether it reduces the incidence or impact of coronavirus. I have seen reports that it does, so we put it into a trial. Unfortunately, the results were that it does not appear to have any impact. That is the latest clinical advice, which is always kept under review.
Sir Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that balancing the measures to tackle covid with the other health consequences, such as cancer patients going undiagnosed or not being treated in time, and the economic and social consequences is a political judgment, and does he further agree that political judgments are improved by debate and scrutiny?
Matt Hancock
Yes, I do. I come to this Dispatch Box as often as possible. I am very sorry that I was unable to come on Friday to discuss Friday’s decision, but the House was not sitting. I agree with my hon. Friend that, essentially, the more scrutiny, the better; that is my attitude. I am very happy to continue to work with him and with you, Mr Speaker, to ensure that that scrutiny can be done at the speed that is sometimes required for these decisions to be made.
Finally, on my hon. Friend’s substantive point, of course minimising the impact on the economy and on education is critical, but there are impacts on the NHS of covid cases going up—not just the need to try to minimise the negative impact that comes from restricting other treatments, such as cancer, that happened in the first peak, but the problem of the NHS operating with high levels of covid cases. Within the NHS, a higher number of cases itself has an impact on the care available for all the other conditions that we need to treat, but I look forward to working with you, Mr Speaker, to make sure that we have continued scrutiny.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I am delighted to have just heard the Secretary of State’s previous answer, because, in a former life, he and I both served on the Public Accounts Committee, so I know that he will understand that every taxpayer living in a community facing a lockdown or unable to get a test deserves a straight answer on whether his Department has imposed a financial penalty or withheld payments for the many voided tests undertaken by Randox. Will he give an answer to that question today?
Matt Hancock
Randox delivers a very significant number of tests every single day—it is a growing number. In fact, it is currently outperforming the allocation that we have asked it to deliver, and I pay tribute to every single person who works at Randox for the work that they have done and the part that they have played in keeping people safe. Everybody who gets a Randox test result, just like every other test result, has more information that they can use to keep themselves safe, and we have more information that we can use to try to keep the whole of society safe.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his Department’s allocation to Scunthorpe General Hospital last week. I also wish him well with the ongoing work for some extra funding for Goole and District Hospital. On tests for schools, the feedback I have had from schools in my constituency has been very positive about the 10 tests with which they have been issued. Will he continue to seek to grow that number and look in particular at a lot of the rural schools where getting access to a test is particularly difficult due to transport issues?
Matt Hancock
Yes, giving 10 tests to all schools across the country has proved very popular, according to the feedback that I have had. I am very glad to hear that that is true in my hon. Friend’s part of the world as well. Of course we will continue that, with the right level of tests being sent out to the right types of schools in the right places, and I will make sure that we take into account rurality as one of those factors.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab) [V]
On Friday afternoon, the Department for Work and Pensions informed Jobcentre staff that, from today, they have to reintroduce face-to-face 10 minute work search interviews with customers. So, Secretary of State, in the light of the rising number of cases and with everyone meant to be playing their part, is this really a sensible approach to be taking?
Matt Hancock
One of the good things about where we are now compared with where we were in March is that, in many areas, we are better prepared. We are better prepared in the NHS. We are better prepared in social care with the winter plan that we put out last week, and many employers and services, such as jobcentres, have been able to develop covid-secure approaches, which means that they can get on with the things that they need to do. The specifics of the question, of course, are for my right hon. Friend the Work and Pensions Secretary, but the principle of how we, as a society, manage to do more things while keeping ourselves covid secure is one that, thankfully, we have been able to develop over the past six months.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
I very much welcome the Health Secretary’s approach not only to save lives, but to protect livelihoods. I acknowledge and welcome his announcement on the new exemption for childcare. Can he confirm what those new arrangements are, and confirm that grandparents and others in my Colne Valley constituency—part of Kirklees, which goes back into local restrictions tomorrow—will be part of that exemption?
Matt Hancock
Yes, I can confirm that. The exemption means that, for instance, if grandparents look after children to provide childcare, where that is a continuous childcare relationship—that is the legal definition—that will be exempt, in the same way that paid-for childcare will be exempt. This therefore does not allow for people to have children staying with others and, as I said in my statement, parties and play dates. It allows, where a family member or other undertakes unpaid childcare that is akin to paid childcare, that they can be exempted. I know how much many people rely on this to be able to get to work, and I am really glad we have been able to make this progress.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Those of us who represent areas that face additional restrictions as of tomorrow are happy to reinforce the messages, but we need the Secretary of State’s help, don’t we, Mr Speaker? The difference between the instruction of households that they “must not go and visit each other” as opposed to saying they “should not go to the pub together” is one of the ambiguities that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) has highlighted right from the start of this crisis. It is an ambiguity that is exploited by the virus, but it is also exploited, sadly, by a small but important minority of people in this country. Will he clear up these ambiguities and improve the chances that everybody will comply with these necessary new restrictions?
Matt Hancock
The message that the hon. Member should be putting out and that I will set out is that, where we say that people should not socialise outside their household, that is the approach that people should take. He makes a detailed point underneath that, but the top-line message to all of his constituents is, no, they should not be socialising with people outside their household.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
I have been contacted by a large number of constituents over the weekend concerned about the fact that a large minority of people in retail settings are still not wearing face coverings. Most retailers are making sure that they follow the rules and they enforce them, but what support can the Department give, across government and at local level, to ensure that when it comes to the small minority, we can enforce these rules and ensure, as the Secretary of State quite rightly said, that we are all in this together and we will stop the spread together.
Matt Hancock
I agree with my hon. Friend that more enforcement is, sadly, necessary to ensure that these rules are followed across the board, because if people follow the rules across the board, it will be easier to get a grip on the virus and the overall impact on the economy and on education, for instance, will be lower. So that is the approach that we are taking both in the example he cites and more broadly.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The Secretary of State spoke about a four-nation approach, but in reality there has not been a Cobra meeting since 10 May. It has taken the First Minister of Scotland to push for this to get a UK-wide Cobra meeting set up, and that undermines the four-nation approach. Does the Secretary of State agree that if we have a four-nation partnership, Scotland needs the powers and the financial levers to be able to implement its own local decisions, such as targeted furlough support for the hospitality and aviation industries and perhaps help for the areas under local lockdown?
Matt Hancock
I would urge the hon. Gentleman to take a lead from the SNP Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford). These are very serious times, and since the Prime Minister had a conversation with the First Ministers of all the devolved Administrations this morning, as I set out, and I have regular and frequent engagement with all the other Health Ministers—in fact, I was having a text exchange with my Scottish opposite number just before coming into the Chamber—I think the most important thing is that we take as united an approach as possible. That is the approach that the Scottish Government are taking, and we are working closely with them.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
I also welcome the statement that the Secretary of State has brought to the House today, particularly the emphasis he places on fighting this common enemy as one united front. What assurances can he give the House that our care homes will protected, with lessons learned from the first wave of covid-19?
Matt Hancock
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Right across the board, it is critical that we are constantly learning about both what went well and what did not go well. The social care winter plan that was published last week has been developed with the sector. I visited a care home on Friday and heard from the people there about what they have learned about how policy is developed to make sure that we protect people in care homes as much as possible.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab) [V]
Last year, I was faced with every parent’s nightmare as I rushed my small baby to the children’s A&E at the Royal Free Hospital in my constituency because he was not breathing. The doctors and nurses saved his life. The same children’s A&E will now be closed temporarily from next month because of the pressure that covid-19 will put on the NHS over winter. Will the Secretary of State give me a cast-iron guarantee that our local NHS will be given all the resources it needs so that this closure is strictly temporary and the children’s A&E service can be restored as soon as possible?
Matt Hancock
Of course I would be very happy to work with the hon. Lady on this question. We do have to make sure that our hospitals are covid-secure. I would be happy to meet her to discuss the specifics at the Royal Free.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The trouble with authoritarianism is that it is profoundly inimical to civil liberties. It is also increasingly incompetent. It relies on acquiescence, and acquiescence for lockdowns, particularly national ones, is draining away. For instance, if students are told not to go to pubs, they will simply congregate in rooms, which is even worse. If the Secretary of State does not listen to me, will he at least listen to Professor Mark Woolhouse, a professor of infectious diseases? He wrote in The Sunday Telegraph:
“It is profoundly disappointing that six months into this pandemic, having rejected every alternative proposed, we keep coming back to lockdown”.
He suggests—[Interruption.] I am trying to be constructive. He suggests that we rely on encouraging people to look after themselves, to protect the vulnerable and to take responsibility for their own lives. That is the Conservative way.
Matt Hancock
As a Conservative, I believe in as much freedom as possible consistent with not harming others. One of the sad things about this virus is that because of asymptomatic transmission, if people put themselves at risk of catching coronavirus and get ill, they are not only putting themselves at risk but putting others at risk as well. That is the Conservative principle behind protecting the health of the nation in the face of this pandemic.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) [V]
The Secretary of State will accept that a near-one-week turnaround for tests for people working in our care homes is not looking after our elderly. Can he be precise: when will we get the 24-hour turnaround that we must have if we are to keep the elderly safe in those homes?
Matt Hancock
We have protected the number of tests in care homes. The challenge is that when the system is running hot and the number of tests going through is very close to capacity, that can have an impact on turnaround times. We saw that in the past couple of weeks. Thankfully, those turnaround times are coming down again, as well as our managing to protect the over 100,000 tests a day that go to social care. While some people may call for other areas to be prioritised—for instance, the testing of children—the most important thing is that we protect those who are most vulnerable to this virus, and the most vulnerable live in our care homes.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
I know the Secretary of State is very keen to get more tests. SureScreen in my constituency has developed an antigen test that is ready in 15 minutes. It will be able to ramp up its production to 1 million by November, rising to 2 million a week. Will he please look at its test and make use of this expertise? I think that he will be going to a Cobra meeting tomorrow, so will he explain to the Prime Minister that we live in a democracy, not a dictatorship, and we would like a debate on this in this House?
Matt Hancock
There absolutely will be a debate in this House on the measures that we have to use. We have to move very fast, and I am very happy to talk to my hon. Friend about SureScreen in her constituency.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
In south Wales, Caerphilly and Rhondda Cynon Taf are in local lockdown, and people in those boroughs cannot leave to go on holiday. Those areas will be joined by four others tomorrow evening. The Welsh Government have said that those would-be holidaymakers should have a full refund if they are prevented from going on holiday. Will the Secretary of State say emphatically that those people must have a full refund of the cost of their holidays, as a policy of central Government?
Matt Hancock
I am very happy to work with the hon. Gentleman and others to make sure people get the fair treatment they deserve.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
At a time when we do not yet have the world-beating track and trace system or enough tests because of logistical problems, why are the Government excluding senior military commanders from key decision making and preventing them from bringing to bear their logistical capabilities?
Matt Hancock
On the contrary, the military’s support has been absolutely brilliant in expanding the testing system—test and trace—and it is engaged in the development of our vaccine roll-out plans. The work that senior military personnel have done is absolutely first rate.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
My constituency of North Norfolk, and Norfolk more widely, has seen some of the lowest infection rates in the entire country thanks to the dedication and sacrifice that many people have made in my area. Can the Secretary of State assure me that any further major national restrictions will reflect the low levels of infection in constituencies such as mine?
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend makes an important point. He represents the oldest constituency in the country, so this is an important matter for him and his constituents. This comes back to the central point that it is critical to get the right balance between the measures we take nationally and those we take locally, according to local rates of infection.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
There will be a number of relieved parents in my constituency because of the change in informal childcare. I have spoken to primary and secondary headteachers across Gateshead, and it is clear that their difficulty in obtaining tests and getting results quickly is causing real disruption for schools and not allowing them to take swift action to stop onward transmission. I note that the Secretary of State listed teachers in his statement, but will he do more to ensure that tests are available for teaching staff and that results are available more quickly?
Matt Hancock
Of course I am working to exactly that end. If somebody has the symptoms of coronavirus, they should self-isolate even if they cannot get a test. I understand how frustrating that is, and I am working as hard as I can to try to get those turnaround times as fast as possible.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
The self-isolation support payment of £500 comes into force next Monday for those on lower incomes who cannot work from home and stand to lose income. Of course, it is being distributed through local councils in England. Given that local government is a devolved matter, has my right hon. Friend had conversations with the Welsh Government about replicating the policy in Wales?
Matt Hancock
Yes, the UK Government will be providing the funding so that the devolved Administrations are able to put similar support in place. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster spoke to the First Minister of Wales over the weekend to ensure that in Wales people can get the level of support that we are introducing in England.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
The Secretary of State is quite right: these are serious times, and we require serious answers, so can he answer the following? It has prioritised VIPs over the public; it has a failure rate of over 90% on testing targets; it has the highest voided tests of any lab, including 12,401 in a single day; it has Conservative MPs on the payroll, and it was found by the National Police Chiefs’ Council to have committed the most serious breach of standards by manipulating forensic tests. Why, then, was Randox Laboratories judged an appropriate company to be handed a £133 million contract to the exclusion of all others—or will the Secretary of State again resort to a churlish response, proving that the rules do not apply to this increasingly lawless Government?
Matt Hancock
I implore the hon. Gentleman to support all those who are working so hard to deliver the tests that people need. Every other question on testing is, “Can we have more tests, please?” and we hear stories about just how much these tests are needed. I think we should be there supporting the people who are doing the testing.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has many invidious choices to continue to make, but, further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady), the wider health implications of covid-19 cannot be overstated. They include delayed cancer diagnosis, missed stroke and heart attack treatments, and the cancellation of elective surgery. Will my right hon. Friend therefore confirm that the Nightingale hospitals will be brought back online to minimise impacts on wider healthcare?
Matt Hancock
The Nightingale hospitals are there, ready to go if they are needed. They are currently mothballed and can be reopened very rapidly. We are working incredibly hard with the NHS to ensure that this time around there is the absolute minimum disruption to other treatments, but of course the first, best minimisation of impacts on other treatments is not to have a sharp rise in the number of people going to hospital with covid. Our plan learns from what happened before. Of course there is the much more widespread capability for testing, both in the NHS and outside, thanks to the hard work of companies such as Randox and others. That means that we will be better placed than last time around to keep the rest of the NHS running, but it does not mean that we can rest easy in terms of rising cases, because of course the easiest way for the NHS to operate is to keep covid cases low.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Over the weekend I have been listening to headteachers from around the south Lakes, who tell me that they are under increasing pressure, with teaching staff, teaching assistants and others off work, struggling to book a test slot. Some have been advised to travel as far as Brighton, a 10-hour round trip, and some pupils are off school for 10 days waiting for a test of their own. Our teachers are doing their job brilliantly. Is it not time that the Government did theirs and provided a testing scheme that works?
Matt Hancock
I would be very interested in the examples, especially of people being sent long distances, because, as I said earlier, the information I have been given is that that problem has been resolved. I am working incredibly hard to resolve all the other problems and to bring to bear the record testing capacity that we have.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
Again, I support my right hon. Friend and his statement today, but I echo calls for what comes next to reflect the reality on the ground in areas such as mine, where rates are way down on the England average. Linked to that, as we move into what is clearly the next phase of this battle, will he look at a much more devolved and decentralised test, track and trace system? I think “keep Winchester safe” will have much more cut-through with my constituents, and that is surely better managed in Hampshire.
Matt Hancock
Yes. We need the scale of the national system and the resonance of the local system and the local knowledge. We are increasingly driving things in that direction, and I would love to talk to my hon. Friend, who is incredibly knowledgeable in these matters, to see what more we can do.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his and his officials’ incredible efforts over the last few days that have meant he was able to make the statement today that informal childcare will sit alongside formal childcare to allow those selfless grandparents across the north-east and elsewhere where local restrictions have to be brought in to make sure, out of the goodness of their hearts and the love of their families, that their sons and daughters can go to work—often low-paid, seasonal work with difficult hours. I thank him for that. Does he also agree that it is for all of us to be selfless, not selfish, as we try to get to grips with the second wave?
Matt Hancock
That is a good point on which to end, because my right hon. Friend has worked incredibly hard over the last four or five days to try to ensure that we find a way to protect people who use informal childcare without unnecessarily harming others by widening the exemption beyond what is needed. It is important to control the virus and keep listening to people as to how best to do that, and she has helped enormously. Her final point is critical, which is that we all have a role to play in taking seriously the rise in cases and hospitalisations that we have seen and making sure that we are all doing our bit to control coronavirus.
Point of Order
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In response to the lockdown earlier this year, the Government made significant changes to the operation of our railway network, which cost not millions but billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money. After being in place for almost a quarter of a century, the Government announced in various media outlets today that rail franchises are to be ended and replaced by emergency recovery measures agreements.
In line with what seems to be common Government practice, at no point, despite being asked on numerous occasions, has the Transport Secretary, or any Government Minister for that matter, come to the House to make a statement on any of those issues. Instead, they have preferred to make announcements remotely through media outlets and press releases.
Mr Deputy Speaker, given that the Government keep talking about parliamentary sovereignty but seem set on disrespecting the House, what influence could you bring to bear to stop such abuse of the House and to stop the Government failing to make major policy announcements to the House? What influence can you bring to bear to ensure that the Transport Secretary comes to the House to announce such major transformational changes to our transport network?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for notice of his point of order. I note that there is a written statement from the Secretary of State for Transport on today’s Order Paper, which it appears may shed light on the Secretary of State’s policy. It is regrettable that such a major policy statement was made to the press before it was made available to the House. Mr Speaker has always been clear that such statements should be made to the House and that Members should have the opportunity to question Ministers on their policies. I thank the hon. Gentleman once again.
The sitting is suspended for three minutes for sanitisation purposes.
United Kingdom Internal Market Bill
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
22:44 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 255 / Noes: 346 - Question accordingly negatived.
22:59 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 350 - Question accordingly negatived.
23:16 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 332 / Noes: 257 - Question accordingly agreed to.
23:30 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 338 / Noes: 254 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
I should explain that, in these exceptional circumstances, although the Chair of the Committee would normally sit in the Clerk’s chair during Committee stage, in order to comply with social distancing requirements, I will remain in the Speaker’s Chair, although I will be carrying out the role not of Deputy Speaker but of Chairman of the Committee. We should be addressed as Chairs of the Committee, rather than as Deputy Speakers.
Clause 11
Modifications in connection with the Northern Ireland Protocol
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Second Deputy Chairman
With this it be convenient to take the following:
Amendment 45, in clause 40, page 31, line 16, at end insert—
“(d) the need to maintain the necessary conditions for continued North-South cooperation in—
(i) the areas of environment, health, agriculture, transport, education and tourism, energy, telecommunications, broadcasting, inland fisheries, justice and security, trade and business development, higher education and sport, and
(ii) any other area that may be agreed by a body established under the provisions of the Good Friday Agreement.”
This amendment would aim to build into the Bill the need for ministers to maintain the conditions necessary for North-South co-operation in areas specified under the Good Friday Agreement.
Amendment 48, page 31, line 16, at end insert—
“(d) the need to ensure that there would be no new checks on goods moving from Northern Ireland to Ireland, and
(e) the need to ensure that there would be no new checks on goods moving from Ireland to Northern Ireland.”
This amendment would aim to require Ministers to have special regard to ensuring that there are no new checks on goods moving from Northern Ireland to Ireland or vice versa
Amendment 41, page 31, line 16, at end insert—
“(1A) When exercising any functions covered by this Part, any appropriate authority has a paramount duty—
(a) to act without prejudice to all international and domestic law, including the Withdrawal Agreement;
(b) to address the unique circumstances on the island of Ireland;
(c) to maintain the necessary conditions for continued North-South cooperation;
(d) to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland;
(e) to protect the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement in all its dimensions.”
This amendment is intended to provide a safeguard so that any actions with respect to Part 5 of the Bill must be consistent with relevant existing international and domestic law commitments, including the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement and its Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol.
Amendment 68, page 31, line 16, at end insert—
‘(1A) Regulations that would introduce new requirements for goods traded from Great Britain to Northern Ireland may not come into force without the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
(1B) No additional official or administrative costs consequent on any regulations of the kind mentioned in subsection (1A) may be recouped from the private sector.
The intention of this amendment is to require the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly before trade frictions are imposed on goods traded from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, and to protect Northern Ireland businesses from paying for any new administrative costs.
Amendment 67, page 31, line 26, at end insert—
‘(2A) On or after IP completion day, an appropriate authority must not exercise any function in a way that would—
(a) result in an existing kind of GB-NI check, control or administrative process being used—
(i) for the first time, or
(ii) for a new purpose or to a new extent; or
(b) result in a new kind of GB-NI check, control or administrative process—
(i) being introduced, or
(ii) being used.
(2B) For the purposes of this section—
(a) a “GB-NI” check, control or administrative process is one applicable to the direct movement of goods produced in a part of the United Kingdom from Great Britain to Northern Ireland;
(b) goods are to be regarded as “produced in” a part of the United Kingdom (if not wholly produced there) if the most recent significant regulated step in their production has occurred there.”
(c) an “existing kind” of GB-NI check, control or administrative process is one that—
(i) was in use or available for use immediately before IP completion day, or
(ii) is the same as, or substantially similar to, one that was in use or available for use immediately before IP completion day (the “predecessor”);
(d) a “new kind of” GB-NI check, control or administrative process is one that is not of an existing kind;
(e) where an GB-NI check, control or administrative process is of an existing kind because of paragraph (b)(ii), that check, control or administrative process and the predecessor are to be treated as a single function for the purpose of determining whether subsection (1)(a) prevents its exercise;
(f) the purpose for which, or extent to which, a function would be used is “new” if the function has not been used for that purpose, or to that extent, before IP completion day.
(2C) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations amend this section so that it applies to a type of movement instead of, or in addition to, a type of movement to which it already applies (whether that type of movement is direct movement or another type of movement provided for by regulations under this subsection).”
The intention of this amendment is to mirror in Clause 40, in relation to the movement of goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, the unfettered access NI-GB provisions in Clause 41.
Clause 40 stand part.
Amendment 69, in clause 41, page 32, line 4, at end insert—
“(c) result in a new cost on an Northern Ireland business in accessing the market or in meeting conditions of sale on the market that would not exist for Great Britain businesses.”
The intention of this amendment is to make unlawful both direct costs and administrative processes and indirect costs such as labelling etc being imposed on Northern Ireland businesses after IP completion day.
Amendment 52, page 32, line 4, at end insert—
‘(1A) An appropriate authority exercising any function to which this section applies must have regard to the obligations of the United Kingdom under the Withdrawal Agreement, including in particular the duty to seek resolution of disputes through the Joint Committee.”
The intention of this amendment is to confirm the process agreed in the Withdrawal Agreement as the mechanism for dispute resolution.
Government amendment 61.
Amendment 53, page 32, line 19, leave out paragraph (b).
The intention of this amendment is to omit the disapplication of international domestic law under Clause 45.
Government amendment 62.
Amendment 70, page 32, line 25, after “direct” insert “or indirect”
The intention of this amendment is to include within the definition of “NI-GB check” goods which travel indirectly (via Dublin, for example) from Northern Ireland to Great Britain.
Amendment 71, page 32, line 48, at end insert—
‘(5A) Before making regulations under this section, a Minister of the Crown must consult and have regard to the views of the Northern Ireland Executive on the proposed regulations.”
The intention of this amendment is to require the Minister to consult the Northern Ireland Executive before making amending the Clause on unfettered access.
Government amendment 63.
Clause 41 stand part.
Amendment 54, in clause 42, page 33, line 40, at end insert “, and
(c) the need to respect the rule of law.”
This amendment would require Ministers to take into account the rule of law when making regulations about exit procedures for goods moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain.
Amendment 55, page 33, line 44, leave out subsection (5).
This amendment would remove the provision allowing international and domestic law to be disregarded when regulating exit procedures.
Clause 42 stand part.
Amendment 56, in clause 43, page 34, line 21, after “provision” insert
“while having due regard to the rule of law and human rights”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to respect the rule of law and human rights while making provisions under this Clause.
Amendment 57, page 34, line 23, leave out line 23.
This amendment would prevent the disapplication or modification of NI Protocol Article 10 under this Clause.
Amendment 58, page 34, line 26, leave out lines 26 to 28.
This amendment would protect, under this section about Article 10 of the Northern Ireland Protocol, persons having a right of action in respect of aid.
Amendment 59, page 34, leave out lines 41 to 44.
This amendment would stop regulations under this section about NI Protocol Article 10 having the effect that making rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and procedures that would otherwise apply in relation to aid, would not be recognised because they are derived from international or domestic law.
Clause 43 stand part.
Amendment 60, in clause 44, page 35, line 20, at end insert—
‘(1A) The Secretary of State must take into account the need to respect the rule of law in considering whether and how to comply with the requirements mentioned in subsection (1).”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to respect the rule of law in complying with the duty to notify state aid in accordance with Article 10 of the Northern Ireland Protocol.
Clause 44 stand part.
Government amendment 64.
Amendment 31, in clause 45, page 36, line 17, at end insert—
‘(3A) The meaning of “incompatible”, “inconsistent”, “incompatibility” and “inconsistency” in this Part shall be determined by regulations made by statutory instrument by the Secretary of State.
(3B) Regulations under subsection (3A) may not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of the House of Commons.
(3C) Any draft of regulations laid before Parliament under subsection (3B) must be accompanied by an impact assessment of Her Majesty’s Government’s obligations under international law on Part 5 of this Act.”
This amendment would require the definition of incompatible, inconsistent, incompatibility and inconsistency to be determined only after an impact assessment of the UK Government’s obligations under international law has been carried out (see Amendment 32).
Amendment 42, page 36, line 17, at end insert—
‘(3A) If no agreement has been reached before IP completion day between the EU and the United Kingdom on the free movement of goods in both directions between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, a Minister of the Crown may lay before each House of Parliament a unilateral interpretative declaration, applicable to the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland, setting out how interruption of the free movement of goods between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom would not be in accord with the Protocol.”
The purpose of this amendment would be for the Government to utilise a unilateral interpretative declaration in order to preserve free movement of goods between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK without tariffs or controls in the event of no deal.
Amendment 32, page 36, line 18, at end insert—
““incompatible”, “inconsistent”, “incompatibility” and “inconsistency” have the meaning given in accordance with subsection (3A);”
This amendment would require the definition of incompatible, inconsistent, incompatibility and inconsistency to be determined only after an impact assessment of the UK Government’s obligations under international law has been carried out (see Amendment 31).
Government amendment 65.
Amendment 46, page 36, leave out line 20.
This amendment would aim to put in place an understanding that each section of the Act should be compatible or consistent with the Northern Ireland Protocol.
Amendment 43, page 36, line 27, leave out “whatsoever” and insert
“other than the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights”
This amendment excepts the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights from the definition of “relevant domestic and international law.”
Amendment 44, page 36, line 28, at end insert
“other than the High Court, Upper Tribunal or Court of Session when considering an application for judicial review.”
This amendment seeks to make it clear that nothing in Clause 45 ousts the jurisdiction of domestic courts in respect of judicial review of regulations made under Clauses 42 and 43.
Amendment 47, page 36, line 28, insert —
‘(none) “but excludes any provision of—
(a) the European Convention on Human Rights,
(b) the Human Rights Act 1998,
(c) the Northern Ireland Act 1998, or
(d) the Northern Ireland (St Andrews Agreement) Act 2006.”
This amendment would aim to put in place an understanding that each section of the Act should be compatible or consistent with the legislation specified.
Clause 45 stand part.
Clause 50 stand part.
New clause 6—Duty to seek free movement of goods from Northern Ireland to Great Britain—
Ministers of the Crown must use their best endeavours to seek through the Joint Committee (established in the Withdrawal Agreement) the disapplication of export declarations and other exit procedures for goods of Northern Ireland moving to Great Britain, in a manner consistent with the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement and other international obligations.”
This new clause, while recognising that under the Withdrawal Agreement export declarations and exit procedures fall under the ambit of the EU Customs Code, would mandate the UK Government to use its endeavours to achieve a waiver for Northern Ireland origin goods moving to Great Britain.
New clause 7—Compatibility—
No power under this Act may be exercised by an appropriate authority unless the exercise (or purpose of the exercise) would be compatible and consistent with—
(a) the Good Friday or Belfast Agreement of 10 April 1998 between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of Ireland and the other participants in the multi-party negotiations, which is annexed to the British-Irish Agreement of the same date, or
(b) any domestic legislation or subsequent agreement implementing the Agreement.”
This new clause would aim to ensure that powers could not be used under the Bill if they were incompatible or inconsistent with the Good Friday Agreement or its associated documents.
Amendment 78, in clause 10, page 7, line 17, at end, insert—
‘(2A) In making these regulations, the Secretary of State must have special regard to the need to maintain the integral place of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom internal market.
The intention of this amendment is to ensure that further exclusions from the application of the access principles have regard to safeguarding unfettered access of NI businesses to the UK Internal Market.
Amendment 79, in schedule 1, page 44, line 40, at end, insert—
‘(6A) In the case that there is one REACH authorisation process for Great Britain, an authorisation that is lawful for the Northern Ireland market will be valid for the Great Britain market.”
The intention of this amendment is to apply the non-discrimination principle to the REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals) regime.
Amendment 4, in clause 54, page 41, line 24,at end insert—
‘(2A) The relevant sections of this Act come into force in accordance only if—
(a) a Minister of the Crown has moved a motion in the House of Commons specifying on which date a relevant section comes into force, and
(b) that motion is approved by resolution of the House of Commons.
(2B) The relevant sections for the purposes of subsection (2A) are sections 42, 43 and 45.”
This amendment would prevent any of sections 42 (Power to disapply or modify export declarations and other exit procedures), 43 (Regulations about Article 10 of the Northern Ireland Protocol) and 45 (Further provision related to sections 42 and 43 etc) coming into force before the House of Commons had approved by resolution the date from which they would take effect.
Government amendment 66.
Everyone will know that the call list is very well subscribed, so may I ask at this stage that those taking part show some self-discipline as to the length of contributions made, so that as many MPs as possible may be able to participate in this part of the Committee?
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Robin Walker)
Thank you, Mr Evans. I am pleased to be opening this detailed consideration of part 5 of the Bill, which deals with matters relating to the Northern Ireland Protocol. I welcome this opportunity to discuss these provisions and the important issues they raise in depth today. Before I turn to the specific clauses and amendments in this group, let me begin by making it clear that the Northern Ireland protocol to the withdrawal agreement is designed to recognise and protect the needs and unique circumstances of Northern Ireland. Central to that is ensuring that the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, its successor agreements, and the gains of the peace process are protected. But, above all, we must ensure that the delicate balance between all communities in Northern Ireland is maintained and that the UK Government pursue policies for sustained growth and stability in Northern Ireland. Those have always been and will remain this Government’s priorities.
Through this Bill, we are acting to uphold those priorities and deliver the commitments we made in our election manifesto that we would provide unfettered access between Northern Ireland and Great Britain and
“maintain and strengthen the integrity and smooth operation of our internal market.”
The protocol also explicitly depends on the consent of the people of Northern Ireland for its continued existence. As we implement the protocol, that must be kept in mind. Those commitments are, of course, entirely in accord with the protocol itself, which makes it clear that, among other things, Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom’s customs territory, that nothing in the protocol prevents unfettered access from Northern Ireland to the rest of the UK market, and that in its application the protocol should impact as little as possible on the everyday life of communities in both Ireland and Northern Ireland.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Will the Minister confirm that if the European Union kept its promise in the political declaration of a free trade agreement, many of the troublesome issues would drop away and all would work smoothly?
Mr Walker
My right hon. Friend is of course right about that, and we still hope to strike a free trade agreement with the EU. I also point out that these issues can and should be resolved through the Joint Committee—I will come back to that.
Both the UK and the EU signed up to the protocol on the basis I just outlined. We are committed to implementing the protocol and we have been working hard to ensure that it is done in a way that delivers the promises that have been made. That includes working with the EU to reach agreement through the Joint Committee process in a number of areas that the protocol left unresolved, and we very much hope that agreement can be reached shortly. But if it is not, the harmful legal defaults contained in some interpretations of the protocol, which were never intended to be used, would be activated. The consequences for Northern Ireland in that scenario would be very damaging. We cannot and will not run that risk.
The provisions we are considering today will therefore ensure that in any scenario, we will protect Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom; ensure that businesses based in Northern Ireland have unfettered access to the rest of the United Kingdom; and ensure that there is no legal confusion or ambiguity in UK law about the interpretation of the state aid elements of the Northern Ireland protocol.
Mr Walker
I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman in a moment, because I do intend to refer to some of his comments in my speech, and I will happily take his intervention shortly.
Further measures will be set out in the Finance Bill. These will have the same effect as those already proposed in the UKIM Bill, and will make it clear that no tariffs will be payable on goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland unless those goods are destined for the EU market, or there is a genuine and substantial risk of them ending up there. We will take the necessary powers in the Finance Bill to ensure that this is defined in a reasonable and proportionate way, which ensures that legitimate traders are not penalised, while also resolving the outstanding issues relating to the payment of VAT and excise duty. So we are taking limited and reasonable steps through the legislation to create a legal safety net by taking powers in reserve, whereby Ministers can guarantee the integrity of our United Kingdom and ensure that the Government are always able to deliver on their commitments to the people of Northern Ireland in line with the three-stranded approach of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I declare an interest as a member of the Ulster Farmers Union, which has contacted me, and it says:
“there will be a total amount under the NI protocol that will be a maximum we can give to agriculture in the form of support and there will be a certain percentage that we could give as coupled support.”
It clearly sees that less state aid will be available for Northern Ireland and we will be treated differently from Scotland, Wales and the rest of England. Does the Minister of State agree with that?
Mr Walker
I will come in detail to the amendment tabled by the hon. Gentleman’s party later in my speech, but I do recognise that when it comes to state aid, we have made specific agreements under the protocol on goods traded between Northern Ireland and the EU, and we should stick to those in order to ensure the effective functioning of trade north, south, east and west. We are taking steps in the Bill to clarify the state aid elements, and some of those will be to the benefit of businesses in Northern Ireland. I will come back to that point in more detail.
Mr Walker
If I may, I will come to the right hon. Gentleman’s point very shortly, and then I will happily give way to him.
We would not take these steps lightly. We hope it will never be necessary to use these powers, and we would do so only if, in our view, the EU was engaged in a material breach of its duties of good faith or other obligations. We would, of course, always activate appropriate formal dispute resolution mechanisms with the aim of finding a solution through this route in parallel to any domestic legislation. I draw the Committee’s attention to the statement that the Government made on 17 September .
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
Can I ask my hon. Friend to go just a little further than he has just gone? He has explained already that the Government may end up in a position where entirely outrageous behaviour on the part of the EU might lead to a conclusion that no Government could possibly accept. Can I ask him to confirm that in those circumstances the Government would explore to the fullest all the options available to them within the withdrawal agreement before resorting to any breach of international law outside the withdrawal agreement—accepting, of course, that there would come a time when if the Government did not act unilaterally it would then be too late to do so?
Mr Walker
I absolutely hear what my right hon. and learned Friend has said, and I draw his attention to the words of the Prime Minister, who said that we would simultaneously pursue every possible redress under international law, including those provided by the protocol. In those circumstances, in addition to our steps under domestic law, we would—if we had to—make it clear that we believed that the EU was engaged in a material breach of its duties in good faith as required and provided for under the withdrawal agreement and the Vienna convention on the law of treaties.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
This is a very important issue. If it is the case that, before the Government introduced the measures contained in this Bill, or those the Minister has promised will be contained in the Finance Bill, he would first pursue the avenues that are open through the withdrawal agreement—the Joint Committee, adjudication and finally the European Court of Justice—does he not recognise that that process itself could be so elongated that the economic damage done by the requirements of the EU could be very severe in Northern Ireland?
Mr Walker
The right hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. That is why we are taking the powers in this Bill, and we would seek the consent of the House before those powers were exercised—it is to ensure that there is a legal default different from the one that he suggests. It is about taking these steps in parallel.
I want to recognise the significant concerns that many Members have raised, which is why we have agreed that a “break glass” provision should be included, requiring the House of Commons to give its approval before these measures are commenced. I will return to the detail of that shortly, but the Committee should be in no doubt that this Government will always seek to ensure that the Belfast/Good Friday agreement is protected and that the political and economic integrity of our United Kingdom is maintained. That is what the Government amendments in this group seek to achieve.
Clauses 11, 40 and 41 of the Bill give effect to the Government’s commitment to give unfettered access to Northern Ireland goods to the whole UK internal market, in line with the protocol. They will ensure that we protect the vast majority of the £8.1 billion of goods sales from Northern Ireland to Great Britain and guarantee Northern Ireland’s place in the UK’s internal market. That will provide vital legal certainty for businesses in Northern Ireland, whose largest market is the rest of the United Kingdom—56% of Northern Ireland’s goods trade is with Great Britain—and deliver on a promise that has been repeatedly made throughout the process of our exit from the European Union.
Clause 11 sets out that qualifying Northern Ireland goods will benefit from mutual recognition and are not discriminated against. It ensures that the mutual recognition principle will apply to all such goods that will also benefit from unfettered access under clause 40. Clause 40 ensures that, in implementing the protocol, authorities must have special regard to the fundamental need to maintain Northern Ireland’s integral place in the UK’s internal market and customs territory and to facilitate the free flow of goods between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. That, of course, applies to trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland in both directions.
Clause 41 ensures that there will be no new checks, controls or administrative processes on goods moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. This clause is in keeping with what the Government have constantly said, including in our manifesto, and in line with our commitments to businesses in the “New Decade, New Approach” agreement.
Clauses 42, 43 and 45 set out the safety net that I have described. Clause 42 ensures that full unfettered access is guaranteed in any scenario by providing a power to disapply or modify the requirement for export declarations or other exit procedures when goods move from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. As the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) rightly said on Second Reading, there is no real justification for such declarations being needed to protect the EU’s single market or customs union. It is a wholly reasonable suggestion from the UK that this issue can and should be resolved through the Joint Committee, but if it is not—and this is perhaps where he and I disagree—there needs to be a safety net in place.
Hilary Benn
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way on that point. I want to press him on the safeguard measures that are provided in article 16 of the protocol and the extent to which they enable the Government to take action if they think the EU is being unreasonable. There is a one-month waiting period, but after that, the Government are able to take safeguard measures. Annex 7(5) goes on to say:
“The safeguard measures taken shall be the subject of consultations in the Joint Committee every 3 months”.
Could he clarify what would cause those safeguard measures to come to an end? Would it be a decision of the arbitration mechanism that the Government lost? Could it then go to the European Court of Justice? In other words, could he explain why what the Government negotiated to protect the country from bad faith action by the EU is insufficient? We have not had an answer to that question.
Mr Walker
We are talking about the question of legal default. The UK Government are responsible for their implementation of the protocol, and we want to ensure that we have the necessary powers in UK law to avoid those legal defaults. As I have said, we would initiate all necessary proceedings in international law, including those under the protocol, if necessary, at that stage. It is not a stage that any of us want to get to, and we still hope to resolve these issues through the Joint Committee.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
There is a way of reconciling the points made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright) and the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). Under the amendment that the Government have tabled, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) paved the way for, is it not the case that Ministers would have to come to this House and make a case that it found compelling before they could use these powers? As the Bill was formerly drafted—this is why so many of us had concerns about it—Ministers could have made those resolutions under the affirmative procedure, and the powers would have come into force before any of us had a say. Under the amended Bill, Ministers would have to come to the House in advance, make the case and win not only the argument but the support of this House. That should reassure us all that these powers will only be used when absolutely necessary.
Mr Walker
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was going to come in more detail to the amendment tabled by our hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), the Chair of the Justice Committee, and the Government’s amendment in response, but my right hon. Friend is absolutely right in what he says, and that should provide significant reassurance to Members across the House.
Mr Walker
I will make a little progress.
Clause 42 is in keeping with what the Government have constantly said, including public commitments from the Prime Minister, our manifesto commitments and commitments to the people of Northern Ireland. It is clear from the protocol that it is for the UK to implement unfettered access. Declarations of the sort that would be disapplied through this clause would be contrary to the recognition in the protocol that Northern Ireland is part of the customs territory of the United Kingdom.
Clauses 43 and 44 provide a similar safety net in the case of EU state aid rules that will apply in the UK by virtue of the protocol. Clause 43 gives the Secretary of State the ability to ensure there is no ambiguity in UK law about the interpretation of article 10 of the protocol, which provides that EU state aid rules will apply in respect of goods and electricity traded between Northern Ireland and the EU. A clear interpretation of how they will apply may be needed in the interests of legal certainty for both public authorities granting subsidies and companies throughout the UK receiving support. There is a risk that a maximalist interpretation of article 10 of protocol by the EU, which was never intended but is none the less a risk we must protect against, could give the European Commission extensive jurisdiction over subsidies granted in the rest of the UK, known as reach-back. All the subsidies granted to the services sector in Northern Ireland could be caught even if there is no link, or only a trivial one, to a goods provider.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Absolute clarity and certainty is required on this state aid issue. For example, will traders in Northern Ireland be able to benefit from subsidy paid by the EU, will they be able to benefit only from subsidy paid by the UK, or will they be able to benefit from both? If it is both, that would certainly address the issue of the best of both worlds, but I think it is an absolute nonsense, because it will not be allowed to happen. Can the Minister clear up that matter immediately? Will the European Union, or our predatory neighbour to the south of Ireland, be able to stop Northern Ireland benefiting from free ports that could be given to Northern Ireland? Would they be able to block that? Clarity on those issues is absolutely essential.
Mr Walker
The hon. Gentleman raises some important points. It is for the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to use the powers in the Bill to take further steps in setting out the UK’s state aid policy. As the hon. Gentleman will recognise, the UK also has a policy on free ports, which we absolutely want Northern Ireland to be part of, so perhaps that is for future debates.
Let me be clear: the Government’s position is that EU state aid rules will apply in Northern Ireland as long as the protocol is in place in respect of goods and electricity, as agreed, but we have to give businesses the certainty that they will not face the destabilising prospect of the European Commission applying its state aid rules to companies in Great Britain with no link, or only a trivial link, to Northern Ireland. The power in the Bill allows the Business Secretary to make provision for how article 10 is to be interpreted for domestic purposes.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
My hon. Friend has been setting out throughout his speech that the Government want clauses 41 to 45 because of the bad consequences that could come from an interpretation of the withdrawal agreement. If the potential consequences of the withdrawal agreement were so bad, why did the Government sign it?
Mr Walker
As my right hon. Friend knows well, the withdrawal agreement was negotiated by the UK and the EU and agreed with a view that certain elements would be resolved by the Joint Committee. I think there was a reasonable expectation on both sides that the Joint Committee would have made more progress on those issues, but unfortunately we have heard some harmful interpretations over the past few months. The point of these Government clauses is to ensure that we can rule those out and put in place the appropriate legal default.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
Surely the Government’s approach is self-defeating in the following respect? Ministers rightly outline that a range of issues are still to be resolved through the Joint Committee. For that, we need to prove to the European Union that the UK can be trusted if various derogations are granted to the UK, but if we pass legislation that still contains even the merest threat of breaching the existing agreement, why would the EU be flexible and give us that trust as we will not have shown the ability to follow through with other previous agreements?
Mr Walker
I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that we have consistently followed through with our agreement. We have done that with the delivery of protocol requirements when it comes to the legislation for the dedicated mechanism and to citizens’ rights, and we will do so regarding EU state aid rules applying in Northern Ireland in respect of goods and electricity as agreed.
Mr Walker
I will make a bit of progress and take an intervention from my hon. Friend later.
Clause 44 establishes a statutory requirement that no one besides the Secretary of State may notify the European Commission of state aid where the UK is required to do so as a consequence of article 10. That codifies in legislation the existing practice where aid is notified by the Foreign Secretary via the UK mission in Brussels and will ensure that a uniform approach to the state aid elements of the protocol is taken across the UK.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The objection seems to be that we may have to act in this way, but we do not want to break international law. Has my hon. Friend noted my amendment 45, which shows a way through? Under the Vienna convention, which is already mentioned through the conditional interpretative declaration, if another party is acting in bad faith, we can use the declaration to escape from an impossible situation. Will the Minister at least look at that amendment?
Mr Walker
I will look at my hon. Friend’s amendment. I will come to amendments shortly—I realise that I need to make some more progress in addressing the many amendments we face. We do not consider necessarily that a unilateral interpretative declaration would be required, although as I said, we will use all the tools at our disposal to resolve the issue within the terms of the protocol before using the powers in the Bill. If that is one that we considered would help, we would not hesitate to use it, but we do not see the need for the amendment in that respect.
For the avoidance of doubt, let me confirm again that we are of course committed to implementing the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol, and have already taken many practical steps to do that. However, as a responsible Government, we cannot allow the gains of the peace process or the economic integrity of the UK’s internal market to be compromised inadvertently by unintended consequences and harmful legal defaults suggested by some interpretations of the protocol.
Finally, clause 50 disapplies certain provisions of the UK Internal Market Bill in the scenario that Northern Ireland’s representatives resolve, under the protocol’s consent mechanism, that articles 5 to 10 of the protocol should cease to apply. This is a practical step to account for and respect the principle of consent enshrined in the protocol. The protocol itself is not codified as a permanent solution for Northern Ireland, and neither should it be in the domestic legislation that implements it. Taken together, these clauses deliver on our commitments to Northern Ireland.
I want to address the amendments as briefly as I can, so I will have to be limited in the number of interventions I will take.
Alan Brown
I thank the Minister for giving way. If we go back to the legal defaults that he says were never envisaged to be enacted, will he explain why plenty of people in the House pointed out that these were the very scenarios that could come about because the agreement was signed? Will he also explain why the EU is acting in bad faith by upholding an agreement that the Prime Minister himself said was a fantastic deal for Northern Ireland? Finally, can he explain what happened to this magical technological solution that the Government said they were working on that would prevent all this?
Mr Walker
I take no lectures from the SNP on this issue. It is clear that the reason why the SNP opposes the withdrawal agreement is that it opposed our leaving the EU in the first place. With regard to the development of technological solutions, I agreed with Michel Barnier when he said that it is important that both sides look at innovative and flexible solutions. When it comes to the future debate in the Northern Ireland Assembly on consent, it may be that technological progress can help with delivery, so I think that many of these arguments stand. We are committed to the protocol and to all our commitments to Northern Ireland, including the unfettered access as part of our United Kingdom.
I turn to two amendments regarding the commencement of these provisions that have been subject to much debate and attention, including a number of powerful and persuasive speeches on Second Reading. Amendment 4, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, the Chair of the Justice Committee, and is signed by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, seeks to provide in essence that break-glass mechanism on the key safety net provisions in relation to the protocol by stating that clauses 42, 43 and 45 of the Bill may not come into force until a motion in this House is passed. Since that amendment was tabled, I am pleased that there have been constructive talks between my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and Ministers, and the Government have tabled amendment 66, which provides for substantially the same break-glass mechanism, with the additional requirement for a take-note debate in the other place. I hope that that amendment will demonstrate to hon. Members, including the Chair of the Justice Committee, that we are committed to ensuring that any decision to use the powers is explicitly approved by Parliament.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for the constructive tone that he and members of the Government have adopted in these matters. It enables some of us who otherwise would not have been able to support these clauses to proceed, on the understanding that there is a specific parliamentary lock that bad faith on the counter-party’s side must be proven to the House before these powers are brought into operation, which of course all of us hope will never be the case. I welcome that, and it enables us to support the Government’s amendment.
Mr Walker
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. A fundamental principle of our constitution, and one that lies at the very heart of our exit from the EU, is that this Parliament is sovereign. As set out in clause 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, that means that it can choose to legislate to deliver an interpretation of the protocol consistent with our understanding, while recognising that to do so is a significant step. The parliamentary procedure set out in amendment 66 recognises that, and provides a clearer, more explicit democratic mandate for the use of the powers. I therefore commend amendment 66 to the Committee, and urge my hon. Friend and all Members to support it and not to press amendment 4.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Will the Minister give way?
Mr Walker
Not right now—I will come back to the right hon. Gentleman.
Amendments 64 and 65, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary, make it clear that any regulations made under clauses 42 or 43 would, of course, be subject to judicial review, contrary to some of the claims that have been made over recent weeks, while ensuring that any claims must be brought within a three-month period. That ensures that any challenge to the regulations will be subject to a timely resolution before the courts, which is essential to ensure that Northern Ireland businesses and investors in Northern Ireland have the certainty that they need, which is at the heart of the Bill. I commend those amendments to the House. As they clarify the position on judicial review, amendment 44 is not necessary.
Amendments 61 to 63, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary, are targeted technical amendments to ensure that the Government are able to maintain the integrity of the UK’s VAT and excise systems and can deal with any threats to biosecurity in Great Britain in response to changes required in Northern Ireland under the protocol.
In particular, the amendments ensure that the Government can act to address cases of double taxation and non-taxation created by the Northern Ireland protocol, as well as to close down opportunities for tax evasion.
The amendments will also ensure that both the UK Government and the devolved Administrations can continue, as they do now, to respond to specific biosecurity threats arising from the movement of animals and high-risk plants. The principle of facilitating actions to protect biosecurity on an ongoing basis between England, Scotland and Wales is already reflected in schedule 1 to the Bill. The amendments simply clarify that similar processes can also apply with regard to Northern Ireland where there is a genuine risk of a biosecurity threat that poses a serious threat to the health of humans, animals or plants.
I commend those amendments to the Committee.
Mr Carmichael
May I take the Minister back to the undertaking that he gave to his hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill)? Some of us have some misgivings about that undertaking, because this Government have shown an exceptional fondness for withdrawing the Whip from those in their own party who disagree with them. In the circumstances of the parliamentary lock being necessary, can we get an assurance from the Treasury Bench at some point in this debate that any such vote will be a free vote?
Mr Walker
I will perhaps give way on a point of substance later, but not on that point.
Amendment 41 seeks, among other things, to add a paramount duty to clause 40, requiring authorities to act without prejudice to international and domestic law. Amendment 53 similarly seeks to prevent authorities from exercising functions in a way that is incompatible or inconsistent with relevant domestic or international law. Amendment 52 appears to require the Government to follow the process agreed in the withdrawal agreement as the only mechanism for dispute resolution. Amendments 54 and 55 seek to prevent regulations made under clause 42 from having effect, notwithstanding international and domestic law. Amendment 46 would remove the Northern Ireland protocol from the list of international law that may be set aside, undermining the intent of clauses 42 and 43.
Amendments 57 and 59 would prevent regulations under clause 43 from interpreting, disapplying or modifying the effect of article 10 of the protocol. Clause 43 is a necessary provision that will ensure that the Secretary of State’s interpretation will achieve the correct effect in domestic law.
I repeat that the Government are committed to implementing the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol; however, as a responsible Government we cannot accept any amendments that would undermine the provisions in the Bill and render them no kind of safety net at all, thereby risking the compromising of the UK internal market’s economic integrity by unintended consequences or harmful defaults contained in some interpretations of the protocol, or creating confusion or uncertainty about the position in domestic law. I therefore urge right hon. and hon. Members to withdraw the amendments.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
The Minister invites us to withdraw the amendments. This is the second occasion in the past week on which a Minister has stood at the Dispatch Box and held up an olive branch of potential amendments or provisions that will be brought forth in the Finance Bill. We have not seen the text of those potential provisions and we do not know their content. I invite the Minister to go a little further and explain why we should withdraw the amendment at this time, given the verbal assurances he has offered.
Mr Walker
I absolutely hear the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. I have made the point about what we have said in the Command Paper and what the Prime Minister has referred to in respect of the Finance Bill.
Amendment 69 seeks to ensure that there would be no new costs for a Northern Ireland business to access or sell in the market. The UK Government have already committed in legislation to delivering unfettered access for Northern Ireland businesses, including through the Bill, which will apply the principles of mutual recognition and non-discrimination to qualifying Northern Ireland goods, thereby ensuring that they can continue to be sold in the Great Britain market in the same way as now. The amendment is therefore unnecessary.
Amendment 70 seeks to ensure that goods moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain through Ireland will benefit from unfettered access. I reassure Members that we recognise the importance of trade from Northern Ireland to Great Britain that moves via Dublin to Holyhead. We are currently engaging with businesses and the Northern Ireland Executive on the long-term means for delivering qualifying status for unfettered access. It would be wrong to pre-empt the outcome of that consultation, so the Government cannot accept the amendment.
On amendment 71, the Government have been working and will continue to work closely with the Northern Ireland Executive on the implementation of the protocol, including on unfettered access, but we do not agree that a restriction on the Government’s powers to make regulations effectively would be justified.
We resist amendment 72 on the basis that it is legally unnecessary. The current wording already encompasses distortions of competition between persons supplying goods or services in the course of a business within the UK internal market. Such wording is already sufficient to cover the regulation of subsidies that would have the effect of making Northern Ireland businesses less competitive in the Great Britain market.
Although the Government agree with the spirit of amendment 78, the whole Government are acutely aware of the need to maintain Northern Ireland’s integral place in the UK internal market, which is already referenced many times elsewhere in the Bill, so we do not believe the amendment is necessary.
On amendment 79, I understand Members’ concerns and support mutual recognition and the non-discrimination principle, but the exception to mutual recognition that we have introduced for chemicals is there to allow the relevant authorities to respond to local factors. Authorisations granted by the EU after the end of the transition period will not take local conditions into consideration. I emphasise that the authorisations relate to the use of substances of very high concern. It is important that the Government and devolved Administrations can take local factors into account when they decide how to protect human health or the environment from the significant risks posed by such chemicals. I therefore urge Members to withdraw or vote against the amendment.
On new clause 7 and amendment 45, I want to reassure Members that the Bill includes provisions that are there precisely to protect the essential basis of the peace process, by ensuring that, regardless of whether further agreement is reached in the negotiations, there will be no hard border between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, and that Northern Ireland businesses will continue to benefit from unfettered access to the rest of the UK market when the transition period ends.
I can also reassure hon. Members that our commitment to protecting the Belfast/ Good Friday agreement of course includes protecting north-south co-operation in areas specified under that agreement, and the protocol is clear on that. That commitment is already enshrined in UK legislation: in section 10 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, and through our continued support for this strand of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement throughout the process of exiting the European Union.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
Can the Minister explain how people in Northern Ireland can have any confidence that this Government, who said only the week before last that they would break international law, will not break or undermine the Good Friday agreement, which of course is an international treaty?
Mr Walker
As I have said repeatedly, we are absolutely committed to the Good Friday agreement, and I can give the hon. Gentleman an illustration of that in UK law on the very next clause. I can assure him that amendment 48 is simply unnecessary. The protocol guarantees that there will be no hard border on the island of Ireland under any circumstances. We are fully committed to delivering on that and no power in the Bill makes any change to that. We have already included in law our commitment not to
“create or facilitate border arrangements between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland after exit day which feature physical infrastructure, including border posts, or checks and controls, that did not exist before exit day and are not in accordance with an agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU.”
That is set out in section 10(2)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, which I was pleased to take through the House. For those reasons, the hon. Gentleman’s amendments are unnecessary and I urge him not to press them.
On amendments 43 and 47, I can offer hon. Members an assurance that the recognition and protection of rights are fundamental values of the UK. Our human rights framework offers comprehensive, well-established and effective protections within a clear constitutional and legal system. The Bill is compatible with the European convention on human rights, and the Minister who presented the Bill has given a certificate of compatibility, pursuant to section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998, in the usual way. We remain committed to the ECHR, as we have made clear time and again.
Further on amendment 47, the Government do not envisage any circumstances in which the powers set out in clauses 42 and 43 could be used to amend the Northern Ireland Acts of 1998 and 2006. That renders the amendment unnecessary. For this reason, the Government are not willing to accept the amendment. I hope that hon. Members will be reassured by our commitment on this very serious matter and will not press them.
New clause 6 would require the Government to
“use their best endeavours to seek through the Joint Committee…the disapplication of export declarations and other exit procedures”.
I appreciate the thought and sentiment behind the new clause, but I am happy to say that there is no need for it because, as I have already set out, the Government are committed to implementing the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol. We are continuing to work with the EU in the Joint Committee to resolve outstanding issues with the protocol, including export declarations. Although well intentioned, the new clause is unnecessary and I urge hon. Members to reject it.
I will now turn to the other amendments on our safety net clauses pertaining to subsidy control. Now that we have left the EU, we have the opportunity to design our own subsidy control regime in a way that works for the UK economy. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy set out the Government’s plans in this regard in a written statement to the House on 9 September. Clauses 43 and 44 seek to mitigate the risks that stem from the European Commission imposing a broad interpretation of article 10. Ministers will still have respect for the rule of law and human rights when making regulations using these provisions, which is why amendment 56 is unnecessary. I remind the Committee that the purpose of the provisions in clause 43 is to strengthen our legal safety net and ensure that it is the Government’s interpretation of article 10 that UK public authorities must follow. That is why we must reject amendment 58.
Amendment 60 would amend clause 44 by limiting the scope of the Secretary of State’s interpretation of article 10 when notifying possible state aid to the European Commission. Given the complex and novel nature of the application of EU state aid law through the Northern Ireland protocol, it is the Secretary of State who is best placed to interpret and then make any possible state aid notification to the European Commission. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to ignore the safety net that the Government have proposed when making such a notification.
I will deal briefly with amendments 31 and 32. I recognise the spirit of the amendments, but I have to say that they are simply not necessary. An assessment of the legal implications of the clauses has already been provided in the Government’s statements of 10 and 17 September. Nor is there any need to make regulations defining “incompatible” or “inconsistent”, because these are self-explanatory terms. There can be no serious doubt what they mean and no further definition is required. The true intention of the amendments may be to seek to provide another point for parliamentary debate. If that is the case, I trust that the hon. Members who have tabled them will support Government amendment 66. On that basis, I urge them not to press the amendments.
Joanna Cherry
I respectfully remind the Minister that the SNP has 48 Members in the House, not just one MP. I am grateful to him for giving way, because he has dealt with amendment 43, which I tabled, but not with amendment 44. Does he understand that insofar as clause 45 seeks to oust the inherent supervisory jurisdiction of the Court of Session, it not only interferes in devolved matters but it is in breach of article 19 of the treaty of Union between Scotland and England? I know that he does not have a Scottish Law Officer to advise him, but can he take that on board and address it now?
Mr Walker
I am happy to look into the specific issue that hon. and learned Lady raises, but if she looks at the text in Hansard she will see that I addressed the point that she made about amendment 44. I mentioned a Government amendment that had been introduced on separate issues, but I am certainly happy to take that point away for consideration.
In conclusion, the clauses are a necessary protection to deliver our promises on unfettered access and to deliver what the protocol acknowledges on Northern Ireland’s place in the internal market and customs territory of the United Kingdom, and to respect the principle of parliamentary sovereignty.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I rise to speak to amendments 52 to 60, which I tabled with my hon. and right hon. Friends. Together, these amendments seek to provide a solution to the mess that the Government have got themselves into by removing the provisions in the Bill that put our country in conflict with international law. We do so, because we want to maintain our reputation as a country that respects the rule of law; because we want to see a successful internal market for the whole UK when we leave the transitional arrangements on 31 December; and because we want the Prime Minister to deliver the “oven-ready” deal with the EU that he promised the British people last December—a deal that pledged tariff and barrier-free trade for services as well as goods, along with safeguarding workers’ rights, consumer and environmental protection, and which offered a broad, comprehensive and balanced security partnership underpinned by continued adherence and giving effect to the European convention on human rights.
The Bill makes that less likely. Our talks with the European Union have been damaged, our reputation in the world appears trashed, and it is a mess that was completely unnecessary and is not resolved by the amendment tabled by the Government. This so-called compromise may calm some Government Members, but it does not resolve the issue: the breach of international law that has led to the resignations of the head of the Government legal service, Jonathan Jones, and of the Advocate General, Lord Keen, who said in his letter to the Prime Minister that he could not reconcile his obligations as a Law Officer with the Bill, as he could find no
“respectable argument for the provisions at clauses 42 to 45”.
In an interview on Radio 4 last week, the Lord Chancellor was uneasy in his defence of the Bill, as he might well be, having sworn an oath when taking office to
“respect the rule of law”.
The situation could not be more serious, and we accept that the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), which has been seized on by the Government, was introduced with good intention, arising from real, genuine concern among many Government Members, but it does not solve the problem.
In providing for a vote subsequently, the Government have offered a sticking plaster to salve consciences, but we would still be acting in contravention of international law—not when we enact the Bill’s provisions, but when it goes on to the statute book. The Government amendment does not change that fact. Let us look at the withdrawal agreement—as the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) did in her intervention—which was negotiated by the Prime Minister, signed by him and commended to the electorate as the reason to vote for the Conservative party in December’s election. Now, apparently, it is so flawed that we have been asked to break the law.
I saw the argument advanced by the Attorney General that it is okay to breach international law if the decision is taken constitutionally. That clearly flies in the face of the Vienna convention, to which we are a signatory. Article 27 makes that clear:
“A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.”
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making some absolutely crucial points, particularly about the Vienna convention. Does he accept that there is an issue here that goes well beyond the provisions in the Bill and the process we are discussing regarding the internal market? That is that it has damaged Britain’s reputation on the world stage when we have the right hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) talking about breaking the law, when we have an Attorney General who regularly attacks human rights, which the Minister has just told us the Government want to protect, and when we have a Lord Chancellor who talks about fudging the law. That is fundamentally damaging Britain on the world stage and our ability to influence and work with others.
Paul Blomfield
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He sums up well the seriousness of the decision before us today.
John Redwood
Why does the hon. Gentleman not see that this Bill has been brought about by the EU’s wish to break the agreement and what he would call international law by not respecting the sovereignty of the UK, which is fundamental in the agreement, and not going ahead with the free trade agreement, which was meant to be at the core of the future relationship?
Paul Blomfield
I thank the right hon. Member for that intervention. I would be interested to know his views on article 184 of the withdrawal agreement, which embraces the political declaration as the basis for securing our future relationship. On the intentions of both parties, I simply cite the Government’s response to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee’s report on unfettered access, in which they said:
“These talks began in March and continued throughout the summer in a spirit of good faith and mutual respect”.
On page 7, they state:
“The Government is extremely confident that the EU is working in good faith.”
That is the Government’s view.
Paul Blomfield
I am happy to give way again. I am interested to know whether the hon. Gentleman will pursue his point about the Sheffield steel industry, on which he is usually wrong.
Sir William Cash
I am actually going to look briefly at a simple point, which is that, apart from our own judges, the German federal constitutional court in December 2015 clearly stated that international law leaves it to each state to give precedence to national law. International law gives effect in that way. How does the hon. Gentleman answer that?
Paul Blomfield
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I think the answer was provided by the Northern Ireland Secretary when he spoke to the House on the issue and he said that—let us all think on these words—
“yes, this does break international law in a very specific and limited way. We are taking the power to disapply the EU law concept of direct effect, required by article 4”.—[Official Report, 8 September 2020; Vol. 679, c. 509.]
On that, he was right. Article 4 does require that the UK ensures compliance with paragraph 1 of the withdrawal agreement, including our courts, disapplying
“inconsistent or incompatible domestic provisions”.
Article 5 makes it absolutely clear that we have an obligation to
“refrain from any measures which could jeopardise the attainment of the objectives of this Agreement”,
which, as the Northern Ireland Secretary made clear, is the purpose of clauses 41 to 45. In adopting them, we are in breach of international law and unsettling the situation in Northern Ireland, to which the Minister rightly referred. Indeed, the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, Sir Declan Morgan, who is a widely respected voice, said that the Government’s actions “may well undermine trust”.
Joanna Cherry
Does the answer to the question raised by the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) about the German constitutional court not lie in what our own United Kingdom Supreme Court said at paragraph 55 in the case of Miller v. Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union? Our own Supreme Court said that
“treaties between sovereign states have effect in international law and are not governed by the domestic law of any state.”
Is that not the answer under the domestic law of the United Kingdom?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman says that this is about a collapse in trust. The collapse in trust in that description is one way; that is to say with the UK Government, because they are apparently breaching treaty law. However, if he were to go to the case Kadi v. Commission, he would see that the Advocate General at the time of the case made it very clear. I want to quote this, as it is quite important:
“first and foremost, to preserve the constitutional framework created by the Treaty…it would be wrong to conclude that, once the Community is bound by a rule of international law…The relationship between international law and the Community legal order”—
that is their constitution—
“is governed by the Community legal order itself, and international law can permeate that legal order only under the conditions set by the constitutional principles of the Community.”
So the EU itself has the principle that it will vet its obligations and not necessarily implement them, as it requires.
Paul Blomfield
The right hon. Gentleman came back at me on the quote I gave about trust. That quote was from the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, and it was about trust in relation to the Government’s actions. In terms of how we deal with the issues that the right hon. Gentleman refers to, I will come on to those subsequently.
The Government’s cavalier disregard for the rule of law has been condemned by the Law Society and by the Bar Council. It has shocked people across the country, and it has disturbed our friends and allies around the world. Part of the tragedy of the Government’s actions is that they never needed to do this. Instead of throwing their toys out of the pram, there was a grown-up solution there in the Northern Ireland protocol itself: the dispute resolution mechanisms agreed by the Prime Minister, to which the Minister has referred at length and which have been utilised already on other issues. However, in recognising those, the Minister failed to explain to the House satisfactorily why the Government have chosen not to exercise that route and have instead put this proposed legislation before the House. Article 16 provides for either the EU or the UK to take unilateral safeguard measures:
“If the application of this Protocol leads to serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties”,
and annex 7, to which I think he alluded, sets out the process to which matters can be resolved through the Joint Committee set up to oversee the implementation of the withdrawal agreement.
Do not take my word for it. The former Attorney General, the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox), who I seem to recall was once celebrated in the Conservative party, made the case in The Times last week when he said:
“There are clear and lawful responses available to Her Majesty’s Government”,
which
“include triggering the agreed independent arbitration procedure set out in the withdrawal agreement and, in extremis, these might legitimately extend to taking temporary and proportionate measures, where they are urgently necessary to protect the fundamental interests of the UK”.
That was his conclusion. And the Prime Minister could not answer my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) at the Liaison Committee last week when he asked the simple question why he had not been prepared to use those measures, which he negotiated, to resolve any disagreements, rather than engage in lawbreaking.
So let me ask the Minister a simple question, which I hope he will come back to at the end of this very long debate, on the question of state aid. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), said it was a matter for the Joint Committee. Will the Minister be able to confirm in his winding up whether the Government have actually raised their concerns there for resolution?
Our amendments seek to put the Bill right. They reassert our commitment to the rule of law by removing the notwithstanding clauses, which have been the subject of so much attention, but also the other references to disapplying the protocol and disregarding the law.
Paul Blomfield
No. I have taken one intervention from the hon. Gentleman and, with respect for those wishing to speak, I will follow the injunction of the Chair and make progress.
The Government are sending a worrying message, too, about their attitude to accountability in Government amendments 64 and 65, limiting opportunities for judicial review. Our amendments 58 and 59 would put that right, protecting those rights for the scrutiny and challenge of Ministers. If the Government are, as they say, acting reasonably, they should not be afraid of scrutiny or of challenge. Overall, our amendments 52 to 60 would enable the Bill to achieve its aims, but to stick to the rule of law, the Human Rights Act 1998 and our international obligations. We hope that the Government will accept them, but if they do not, we will vote against clauses 42 to 45 standing part of the Bill.
Many Members on the Government Benches talk about their ambition for global Britain. We share the desire for strong trading partnerships after we leave the transition, but that will be undermined by flouting international law, and the Government know that. The Foreign Secretary was dispatched to Washington last week to calm fears. This visit seemed to make things worse. As he left the United States, the man that the polls indicate will be the country’s next President said:
“We can’t allow the Good Friday Agreement that brought peace to Northern Ireland to become a casualty of Brexit. Any trade deal between the US and UK must be contingent upon respect for the Agreement and preventing the return of a hard border. Period.”
He was adding to the views expressed on both sides of the aisle in Congress that there will be no US trade deal if this Bill proceeds unamended. We should remember that the UK and the US are co-guarantors of the Good Friday agreement. It is a responsibility that the future President of the United States seems to be taking more seriously than the Government.
This debate is about our place in the world. It is about our values. It is about the sort of country that we want to be. If we cannot comply with our treaty obligations, how can we ever demand that others do so? We are giving a green light to oppressive Governments, from China to Belarus, who flout the rule of law. This Bill has deeply damaged trust in our country and our place on the global stage. In our votes tonight and tomorrow, we have an opportunity to rebuild our reputation to make it clear that we are a country that can keep its word, a country that can make agreements and stick to them, and a country that believes in the rule of law. Let us not fail in that responsibility.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Let me remind the House one more time that there is a very long call list, so please show time restraint when making contributions.
Mrs May
It is with some regret that I rise to speak on clauses 41 to 45. May I just say to the Minister that the overall intention of the Bill—of ensuring a functioning internal market within the United Kingdom—is absolutely right? I believe passionately in the integrity of the United Kingdom. It is not just a belief; I think it is good for the prosperity of all parts of the United Kingdom.
Today, we are focusing on the parts of the Bill that relate to the Northern Ireland protocol, part of the withdrawal agreement—the withdrawal agreement that was signed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister less than a year ago. I can say to the Minister that, in my view, clauses 41 to 45 have no place in this Bill. We are told that they are there because the EU either is acting in bad faith, or might act in bad faith. This is because the withdrawal agreement put a border down the Irish sea and the Government cannot accept that—but the Government did accept that when they signed the withdrawal agreement with the European Union, and I assume that, when they did so, the Government signed that in good faith. Yet here we have clauses 41 to 45 saying that the Government should have the ability to renege on parts of the withdrawal agreement to break international law.
There are three reasons why I believe that these clauses have no place in the Bill. The first, which has been referred to in earlier interventions, is that it is unnecessary. There is an arbitration process available. Under article 175, the ruling of the arbitration panel should be binding on the UK and the EU. The Government have acknowledged the existence of the arbitration procedure, but they are saying that they would enter into that in parallel with the operation of the elements of this Bill. The message, it seems to me, is very clear, which is, if we do not like the outcome of the arbitration panel, then we will break international law and we will not accept it. Yet, again, that is breaking the international treaty—an agreement that UK Government signed—because it is breaking article 175, which says that the view of the arbitration panel shall be “binding” on both parties. However, there is not just an arbitration process available. As the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) referred to, article 16 says:
“If the application of this Protocol leads to serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade, the Union or the United Kingdom may unilaterally take appropriate safeguard measures.”
Clauses 41 to 45 are not necessary.
Sir William Cash
I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend. Is she aware that the EU itself and indeed many other states throughout the world, including many democratic countries, have persistently broken international law, and that this applies not only to other countries, but to the United Kingdom? There are many overrides of international treaties by the UK itself.
Mrs May
Let me get this right. My hon. Friend seems to be saying, “If somebody else does something wrong, it’s okay for us to do something wrong.” I am sorry, I do not agree with him on that point.
I recognise that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) has taken every effort to ameliorate the impact of these clauses, and the Government have accepted and put down their own amendment. But, frankly, my view is that to the outside world, it makes no difference whether a decision to break international law is taken by a Minister or by this Parliament; it is still a decision to break international law. This can only weaken the UK in the eyes of the world. One of the great strengths we have as a country is our commitment to the rule of law, and this will have been damaged. Our reputation as a country that stands by its word will have been tarnished, and the willingness of other countries to trust the United Kingdom and its values will have been reduced. So much for global Britain!
In 2018, when Russian agents used a chemical weapon on the streets of Salisbury to attempt to murder Sergei and Yulia Skripal—a nerve agent that led to the death of Dawn Sturgess and affected her partner, Charlie Rowley—I led the action. I called on our friends and allies to stand alongside the United Kingdom, and I led the action that resulted in 29 countries expelling an unprecedented 153 Russian agents from their borders. We were able to do that because those countries had trust in the United Kingdom. Where will that trust be in the future if they see a United Kingdom willing to break its word and international law?
If we pass this Bill with clauses 41 to 45, and in so doing accede to the Government’s wish to break international law, I believe it will have a detrimental effect on people’s trust in the United Kingdom. As the United Kingdom negotiates trade deals around the rest of the world, why should anybody we are negotiating with believe that we will uphold what we sign up to in those agreements if we have said clearly, “If we don’t like it after we’ve signed up to it, we’ll break it”?
This is a country that upholds the rule of law. That is one of the things that makes us great; it is one of our characteristics. We propound and uphold the rule of law around the world. The Conservative party upholds the rule of law—it is one of our values and characteristics—yet we are being asked to tear up that principle and throw away that value. Why? I can only see, on the face of it, that it is because the Government did not really understand what they were signing up to when they signed the withdrawal agreement.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon described the Government’s action as unconscionable. As has been said, Lord Keen resigned because he said that he found it increasingly difficult to reconcile his obligations as a Law Officer with the Government’s policy intentions. Frankly, I find it difficult to understand how any Minister can go through the Lobby to support these clauses.
I consider that, in introducing clauses 41 to 45, the Government are acting recklessly and irresponsibly, with no thought to the long-term impact on the United Kingdom’s standing in the world. It will lead to untold damage to the United Kingdom’s reputation and puts its future at risk. As a result, with regret I have to tell the Minister that I cannot support this Bill.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
It is a privilege to follow such a thoughtful and considered speech.
I rise to speak to amendments 31 and 32, in my name and the names of my colleagues. They require that the definition of terms used in clause 45 be determined only after an impact assessment of the UK Government’s obligations under international law has been carried out. I am also happy to speak in support of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends from the Alliance and the SDLP, and I look forward to further debate in Committee.
The SNP rejected the Bill on Second Reading because we will never support legislation that breaks international law—I am not actually sure why I have to say that. Our amendments seek to ensure that this Parliament understands the impact on its international obligations of any future decisions that it takes on the matters covered by the Bill. The UK Government have presented a Bill that not only threatens a breach of international law—a position that now seems to satisfy many Conservative Members—but was in itself a monumental act of bad faith that speaks volumes about their view of themselves and the world around them.
Last October, speaking about his withdrawal deal, the Prime Minister said:
“if we do this deal—if we pass this deal and the legislation that enables it—we can turn the page and allow this Parliament and this country to begin to heal and unite.”—[Official Report, 22 October 2019; Vol. 666, c. 826.]
The range of the amendments to this section of the Bill alone make it clear—not that we needed the clarity—that healing and unity can hardly be described as the highlights of his leadership.
In November 2019, the Prime Minister said:
“Northern Ireland has got a great deal. You keep free movement, you keep access to the single market”.
The Minister spoke about the Conservative manifesto, but it and the Conservative campaign boasted of the Prime Minister’s oven-ready deal. The Prime Minister was effusive in his support of the deal, calling it “very good”, “excellent”, “fantastic” and “wonderful”, but here we are, and he has changed his tune: far from his deal being oven-ready, it is now only fit for the cowp.
Ian Paisley
Is the hon. Lady telling us that she and her party believed the Prime Minister then?
Kirsten Oswald
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. The short answer is no. Regrettably, I do not believe the Prime Minister, on this or other matters.
The Prime Minister said at that point:
“We have to protect the U.K. from that disaster”:
a disaster—and that is his word, not mine—that was negotiated by him and the same adviser as he has now. The Prime Minister visited Northern Ireland last month and talked of close co-operation between central and devolved Governments, but in the least surprising news of the day, certainly to viewers in Scotland, he did not engage with anyone outside Westminster in the development of his Bill. He excluded all of the devolved Administrations from the process of developing a so-called single market through the United Kingdom—plus ça change. Despite the clear relationship between this Bill and the peace process, as well as not engaging with the Northern Irish Executive, the Prime Minister failed to engage with the Irish Government. Despite the clear importance of doing so, he just breenged on regardless. We know why there was no engagement. It is because this shabby Bill—his shabby Bill—had to be put together out of sight of people that the Prime Minister could not control, people with respect for the rule of law and for accountability.
The SNP amendments would ensure that this Parliament would receive an assessment of the impact of any future action on these matters on the UK Government’s obligations under international law—a proper assessment, not the usual triumph of blustering bombast over good judgment by the Prime Minister. The people of Northern Ireland deserve better from the Conservative party, and our amendments recognise that. How can businesses and communities plan with any confidence when their future depends on the internal battles of a party that shows such scant regard for the rule of law?
Colum Eastwood
There has been a lot of talk in recent weeks about consent. The hon. Member rightly says that the devolved Administrations were not spoken to at all about this Bill. With all the talk about consent, it might be useful for the House to know that the Northern Ireland Assembly has just voted in favour of the withdrawal agreement—in favour of sticking to the agreement that the British Government have made with the European Union, and that includes the Northern Ireland protocol. It is the voice of Northern Ireland and it is saying very clearly that this Bill is wrong.
Kirsten Oswald
I thank my hon. Friend that intervention. That is a key point for us. How can anyone trust a Government who do not stand behind the agreements they negotiate—a Government who cannot even agree with themselves?
The Prime Minister’s approach has led to several senior legal figures making a sharp exit. Sir Jonathan Jones, the head of the Government’s legal department; Lord Keen, the UK Government’s most senior adviser on Scots law; and David Melding, Shadow Counsel General in the Welsh Senedd, have all walked away. We have heard about Lord Keen’s letter of resignation, but it was particularly telling in respect of the matters that are before us today. He said:
“I have endeavoured to identify a respectable argument for the provisions at clauses 42 to 45 of the bill, but it is now clear that this will not meet your policy intentions.”
That is a damning condemnation from a former chair of the Conservative party in Scotland. No Member representing a Scottish constituency can defend these clauses—or, in fact, this Bill—and expect to be taken seriously when they claim to stand up for Scotland in this place.
We have also heard that the Sir Declan Morgan, the Lord Chief Justice—Northern Ireland’s top judge—warned that when Governments break international law, that
“might undermine…the administration of justice.”
That should concern us all. Even the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti), who is a barrister, felt the need to resign as the Prime Minister’s special envoy on freedom of religion. These are telling actions and words that should give the Prime Minister pause for thought and reflection. This Bill is a grubby power grab that we cannot and will not support, and this part, as it stands, hangs like a badge of dishonour around this Prime Minister’s term of office—however long or short that might be.
Unfortunately, the Prime Minister’s approach is being propped up by those with somewhat flexible standards. The Attorney General’s take could most charitably be described as mince, and the Lord Chancellor says he will resign only if the Government break the rule of law in a way that is “unacceptable”, which obviously, for a Law Officer, prompts the question: what is an acceptable way to break the law?
What of the effect of the Bill on the UK and Northern Ireland? In October last year, when he was still trying to convince us that he had negotiated a great deal, the Prime Minister said of his withdrawal agreement Bill:
“For those who share my belief in the transformative power of free trade…a new deal, enabled by this Bill, will allow us to sign free trade agreements around the world.”—[Official Report, 22 October 2019; Vol. 666, c. 830.]
By using this Bill to trash that deal, the Prime Minister has again exposed the ethical vacuum at the heart of his Government and undermined trust around the world—and all the time he has singularly failed to deliver what is needed by Northern Ireland. As Professor Katy Hayward of Queen’s University Belfast put it,
“the one thing most hoped for from this bill—certainty—has become an even more distant prospect.”
Sir William Cash
There are many essential reasons, in our national interest and on constitutional and legal grounds, and grounds of practical necessity, for the clear, unambiguous “notwithstanding” clauses in the Bill that have been discussed in the context of clauses 42 to 45.
I mentioned in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) that this was a question not just of whether the Euro pot was calling the British kettle black, but of whether, in the United Kingdom, we had ourselves overridden clear treaties. There are too many—they are far too numerous—to mention in this short debate. Of course, there is also an enormous number of examples of international law breaches by foreign states—not only, in Europe, by member states but by the EU itself, egregiously. Furthermore, there are examples of other countries, every one of them democratically elected, having done so. This question of values and reputation, and the issues that have arisen, has to be weighed against that context.
Of course, there are many international treaties, and there are many aspects—
Sir William Cash
In a moment. There are many aspects of international law that are sacrosanct—those in respect of torture, genocide and the rest, for example—and it is the fact that international law comes in many shapes, sizes and degrees, as I am sure we all know.
Basically, the point is that where the sovereignty of a nation is involved—the Vienna convention addresses this question—and where we are at the highest end of where the national interest lies, other considerations come into play. It is absolutely clear that in many instances, democratically elected civilisations—countries—have themselves broken these treaties.
This Bill does not, in my view, breach international law, but our rule of law must be based on our Parliament making our laws for our people based on our sovereignty, not judges. Indeed, Parliament itself voted for section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, without a single vote or even a voice raised in opposition, as far as I am aware, in either House on Second Reading. That Bill passed its Second Reading by as many as 124 votes.
The famous Lord Bingham clearly demonstrated this in chapter 12 of his book, “The Rule of Law”. He said clearly, with respect to the fact that it is our Parliament, not judges, that makes laws for our people based on sovereignty, that he had come across a number of judgments that had breached that principle. Wise judges do not want to make political decisions. His unimpeachable principles turn on their head the exaggerated claims with respect to the breaking of international law that has not taken place.
As I said, the German Federal Constitutional Court stated in December 2015:
“International law leaves it to each state…to give precedence to national law”.
Laying a Bill is not a breach of international law and is privileged. If a treaty is entered into on the reasonable assumption that a state of affairs would exist, but that does not transpire, the treaty is voidable. The agreement was written on the basis of the EU recognising our sovereignty, which has not happened.
International law is broken by democratic countries throughout the world and the EU, in their own interests. The list is long, but I will give a few examples. Western Sahara is one case. Another is migrants sent back to north Africa and Turkey. In 2010, when the EU broke the Lisbon treaty, Madame Lagarde said,
“We violated all the rules”
about the Greek and Irish bail-outs. The EU is unilaterally changing the bilateral channel tunnel treaty without our being able to prevent it. The EU threatened to use the WTO’s most favoured nation principle against the UK contrary to state practice, core principles of world trade and requirements negotiated in good faith.
I have another stack of examples, which I mentioned, where UK statute has overridden international treaties. There is no argument about it; it is there in black and white in the treaties and in the sections of various enactments that have overtaken and overridden international law.
It is understandable that some are bothered about this to a degree, but the fact is—
Sir William Cash
I said, “to a degree”. Within the framework of international law, it is entirely a question of whether the degree to which it is done is commensurate with what is being proposed. The case of sovereignty goes to the heart of the extent to which we are entitled to take the action that we do.
This is less about breaking international law than about breaking the conditions in respect of state aid and in respect of the manner in which the Northern Ireland protocol would operate in the UK with respect to breaking the issues of contract and of the manner in which people work in this country. We are faced with a critical problem, the effect of which is that if we were not to pass these clear and unambiguous clauses, we would find that we were subjected to EU laws—that we were subjugated to them—in a way that would ensure that we would not be able to compete effectively throughout the world or support the workers of this country, particularly in the context of covid.
Section 38 was passed by every single person in this House and by the House of Lords. There is no doubt about that. The notwithstanding provision is inviolate; it is in an Act of Parliament. These enactments do the necessary job to ensure the future prosperity and competitiveness of this country, and the opportunity for its people to move forward in an enterprise society to enable future generations after Brexit to guarantee their jobs, their businesses and their future.
Gavin Robinson
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), who has that classic flair of oratory, as when he said that some Members may be somewhat bothered to some degree. Whether we agree or disagree with him, he raises a smile through the Chamber.
I rise to speak in support of the amendments tabled by my party. Before I do, I want to reflect on the comments from the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). I regret some of the comments she made about the implications for relationships in Northern Ireland and the consequences associated with the Bill. Be it her contribution or many others on Wednesday and no doubt later today, there is an awful lot being said that is not only at cross purposes across the Chamber but completely misses the point. The right hon. Lady embarked on a political strategy that was encapsulated by the phrase “Brexit means Brexit”, and for nine months there was no greater clarity than that. Here we are four years later, and we know that what was outlined as a national aspiration and what was agreed to in a referendum by the people of this country is not being delivered for the people of Northern Ireland.
Members will remember the week in December 2017 when there was a flurry of activity around the formulation of what became the UK-EU joint report. They will also remember the work that had to go into getting provisions placed in that joint report at paragraph 50, which not only represented the principle that it was of no concern for the European Union to impede or impose upon the integrity of a member state, but stated:
“the United Kingdom will ensure that no new regulatory barriers develop between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, unless, consistent with the 1998 Agreement, the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly agree… In all circumstances, the United Kingdom will continue to ensure the same unfettered access for Northern Ireland’s businesses to the whole of the United Kingdom internal market.”
That was in paragraph 50 of the joint report, but it was never honoured in the withdrawal agreement.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making some powerful points. Does he recall that, when the first version of the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill was brought forward before the election last year, I and others tabled an amendment that would have put paragraph 50 of the joint report into the Bill, but that was not accepted by the Government?
Gavin Robinson
It was not accepted by the Government, but the right hon. Lady was a member of the Government who brought forward three iterations of a withdrawal agreement that did not honour that provision. That provision was not honoured in the earlier iterations of the withdrawal agreement.
Karen Bradley
The hon. Gentleman will recall that there was an addendum to the withdrawal agreement that was agreed and would have been lodged in the international court that would have made paragraph 50 part of an international agreement, but that was rejected by this House.
Gavin Robinson
The right hon. Lady may be right on that point, but here we are yet again, seeking to legislate domestically within the United Kingdom to right the wrongs of a negotiation that should never have advanced in the way that it did. Our Government fell into the trap of trying to provide an answer when they did not know what the problem was. They did not know what the future trading relationship was going to be. They did not know what the overarching trade deal was going to be between the United Kingdom Government and the European Union, and yet they set out to solve the problem of the Irish border without knowing what the overarching provisions would be. That made no sense, and it led us to the position we are in today. Here I am this evening, asking Members to consider provisions that should be part of this Bill but are not and saying that there are aspirations associated with this Bill that should equally apply to Northern Ireland—the whole of the United Kingdom internal market, as stated in the joint report—but do not. That is hugely regrettable.
I spoke on Wednesday about clause 46, on the provision of financial aid, and my party’s amendment 22 to clause 47, to ensure that there was no restriction on such aid for Northern Ireland businesses. The response from Government was, “That’s great. Thank you very much. Let’s consider it on Monday.” Here we stand on Monday. I have enormous respect for the Minister, but we are hearing, “Don’t worry about your amendments. We’ll consider them in the Finance Bill.” There remain important concerns about the European Union state aid rules that will apply in Northern Ireland. There is nothing in this Bill, there is nothing in the Government’s approach, and there is nothing in their plan that seeks to amend or fetter the rule of EU state aid rules within Northern Ireland.
Ian Paisley
Can my hon. Friend explain to the House whether he believes predatory actions from the Republic of Ireland could in fact prevent Northern Ireland from having a free port in his constituency, a free port operational in the constituency of Foyle or a free port operational out of Warrenpoint? Preventing those policies, which would be state aid policies, would have a detrimental impact on trade, jobs and people’s prosperity in Ulster.
Gavin Robinson
I am very grateful for the question, and I know that the Government would respond by saying “Look in the Bill. It is for the Secretary of State and no one else to raise issues or notify the European Union on state aid issues.” I am concerned not just about the operation of that provision, but the chilling effect that the application of state aid rules from the European Union has, when the Government consider the potential support that they could give to businesses in Northern Ireland. Again today, we hear that it applies only to goods and electricity, but I think it applies to services of those manufactured goods as well. I think there is a financial threshold of around half a million pounds, but much more clarity is required from the Government on the application of state aid rules in Northern Ireland, because all I hear is an effort to make sure that the EU does not encroach on GB affairs without any consequential understanding or recognition of—or aspiration to solve—the problems that we will face in Northern Ireland.
Sammy Wilson
While the Bill may state that it is up to the Secretary of State to notify the European Commission of any state aid, there is absolutely nothing to stop the Government of the Irish Republic—or indeed, another manufacturer who feels aggrieved that state aid has been given to firms in Northern Ireland that impinges on its ability to compete with those firms—taking a case to the Commission and going through the European mechanism at that stage. Once that happens, we have no representatives on the Commission or the Court, so it would be a one-way ticket as far as the complainant was concerned.
Gavin Robinson
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I mentioned the chilling effect. Arguably, if the UK Government and officialdom in Whitehall had not offered such religious observance to EU regulations over the past 40 years, this country would not have agreed to leave the European Union. We know that of other countries in the European Union, France has, en français, an à la carte approach to which regulations are important and which are not. The religious observance of regulations in this country has caused that chill factor and it is why people built up frustrations and resentment on the application of those regulations over the years. There is a fear that that could happen in this case.
Let us consider the Addison Lee case on state aid application of rules in this country. Addison Lee wanted to use bus lanes in London, but it was told it could not use them. Addison Lee took a case on the state aid implications because it thought the state was unfairly given an advantage over Addison Lee in London. The UK Government’s position was “Catch yourself on! It is a UK-funded public service versus a UK private business, and EU state aid rules do not apply” but the EU resolved that, yes, the rules were engaged because Addison Lee could equally have been owned by representatives from another member state. That is how the question was resolved, and Addison Lee can now use bus lanes. I have no doubt that the far-reaching implications of state aid law would open the opportunity for claims from elsewhere.
Jim Shannon
To back up my hon. Friend’s argument, the farming community and businesses across the whole of Northern Ireland have expressed their great concern about the different levels of state aid. They are not only referring to food, because subsidy comes in many forms. My constituents tell me that they are also concerned about being precluded from the tax reliefs available on the mainland, because potentially our competitive ability may be greatly hampered by that discrepancy. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Gavin Robinson
I do agree. I know that the Minister went through a number of the amendments we have tabled and said, “Look, there are provisions about direct and non-direct discrimination and those still apply.” However, where a business is competing in a sector for which there are state subventions and subsidies in England, Scotland and Wales but where those same subsidies and subventions are precluded in Northern Ireland, there will be discrimination. There will be an unfair playing field in the economy of this internal market, and that square is not circled in this Bill. There are no satisfactory answers from the Government to say, “If we run with the implication of EU state aid rules in Northern Ireland, and if we support businesses in GB but not in Northern Ireland, how is there not unfair competition? How are there not direct or indirect discriminatory outworkings of the provisions of this arrangement?”
I want to draw the Minister’s attention to a useful document, which I hope he will spend time considering. I refer to the Northern Ireland stakeholder response to the UK’s research and development road map consultation, which considers clearly some of the things the Government could do under clauses 46 and 47 in providing financial support for sectors in Northern Ireland. We hear an awful lot in this Chamber about doubling down on levelling up. We know that research and development support across the UK is hugely uneven, and that the majority of that money goes into the south-east of England, to London and to the east of England, and that Northern Ireland and other regions throughout the UK do not get their fair share.
The stakeholder response is a collaborative piece of work by Belfast City Council, Belfast Harbour, Queen’s University, Ulster University and Catalyst Northern Ireland. It asks that the Government ring-fence R&D support, with a minimum of £250 million per year for Northern Ireland; that they create bespoke arrangements that allow for flexibility of funds for the Northern Ireland economy; that they appoint regional delivery partnerships; and that they are considering an ARPA—advanced research projects agency—for the cyber-security hub in my constituency, our FinTech hub, the advanced and high-end engineering and manufacturing in my constituency, and the aspirations of a digital free port in Belfast. That ARPA opportunity is well worth considering and it is well worth showing that even though we may have an uneven playing field, our Government are serious about doubling down on levelling up and will extend support to Northern Ireland.
I would love to go through a lot of the amendments, but I am conscious that I have gone over my self-imposed timeline, so I will just discuss the importance of amendment 68, which proposes a change to clause 40. It proposes that Northern Ireland Assembly consent would be required for any new arrangements or requirements for goods traded from GB to NI, and new requirements would not come into force unless they were agreed with the consent of the Assembly. It would also provide that:
“No additional official or administrative costs”—
arising from new requirements—
“may be recouped from the private sector.”
The Minister referred to the trader supporter service, and we know that the Government have said that there are going to put £355 million into that service at this stage. Huge questions remain unanswered for businesses in Northern Ireland, which have heard that they have unfettered access to the UK internal market. Some understand that that promise is one way; some understand that that promise is NI to GB. Some do not understand that there are huge constraints on GB to NI trade, because the Government gave that power away in the withdrawal agreement. They passed it to the Joint Committee and therefore they are only half of the equation. We know that the Joint Committee is considering what goods are at risk, but businesses are trying to access goods in the rest of GB and their suppliers are saying, “Are we able to send this to you? Will we be able to sell you these goods? Will we be required to file exit declarations? Will there be a cost for us doing business with you in Northern Ireland, one that we are not prepared to meet or you are not prepared to pay?” If that is the case, it makes a whole nonsense of this internal UK market.
Stephen Farry
Will the hon. Gentleman clarify for the record whether, if the amendment were to proceed and the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly were required, that would constitute a unilateral breach of the protocol in how that consent would be given? Could a petition of concern be lodged against it, thereby giving his party and anyone else—Members of Traditional Unionist Voice, for example— a veto over the way forward?
Gavin Robinson
The first aspect of that question is the intended breach, and the answer is clearly no, because amendment 68 talks about “new requirements”, and if the hon. Gentleman reads the content of the amendment, he will see that. The Northern Ireland Assembly has cross-community voting mechanisms not to provide vetoes but to encourage consensus. The hon. Members on the Benches to my left know exactly why those provisions were brought in, and they know the importance of them, but they tend to believe that they are worthy of use only when there is an issue for which they wish to use them. That is hugely regrettable. When I talk about the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly, I know that there are cross-community mechanisms to ensure that we get to a place of consensus. I do not believe in stalemate or in logjams. I have spent my political life trying to resolve them. I hope that when I contribute on issues in this House, people respect the fact that, although I do not necessarily agree with everyone, I try to get to a place where we can agree.
Businesses in Northern Ireland that buy from GB and wish to sell to GB want to know what their trading position will be. They were promised the best of both worlds, yet day after day they are learning about the bureaucratic and administrative burdens that are going to be placed upon them. They want answers. I know that the Minister will respond thoughtfully to the debate, and that he will pick up on some of the additional issues that I have raised on amendment 68. I hope he does that. I hope he offers some clarity and comfort for businesses in Northern Ireland, and I hope he outlines just how the Bill will assist them. I believe that it will not do so, however, so I hope that he gives us some clarity as to what steps the Government are prepared to take in the Finance Bill to resolve these overarching and burdening issues, which remain unresolved, through the Joint Committee.
Sir Robert Neill
This has not been the most edifying spectacle for the House of Commons over the past few days, but I hope that, at the end of the day, we can find a constructive way forward. I say that it is not edifying because, although much of the purpose of the Bill is important and valuable, to act in contemplation of something that most of us would regard as unworthy—namely, to breach an international obligation—is not something that one should ever seek to discuss lightly. Equally, it is not something that can ever be an absolute, because there can be certain extreme and pressing circumstances where such a derogation is permissible, but the bar has to be a very high one. That is why the discussions that have taken place between some of us and the Government, and the Minister’s response, are important, as far as my thinking is concerned. On the face of it, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) observed, without safeguards and caveats, clauses 42, 43 and 45 would without more ado be unconscionable, and we could not support them.
I want also to speak to my amendment 4 and the Government’s amendment 66, which I hope will provide a means of reconciling that position with the need to find a constructive way forward.
Sir Robert Neill
If my hon. Friend will allow me to develop my point a little, I will of course give way to him in a moment.
Without a parliamentary lock, I do not believe that it will ever be appropriate for a sovereign Parliament to contemplate breaking an international obligation. There has to be a test for the parliamentary lock to be met. I welcome, therefore, the Minister’s comments on Government amendment 66 and the test that he has adopted—and that was previously put out by Downing Street—at the Dispatch Box in respect of the high bar that would have to be met before the House could or should be persuaded to support such a course of action. For me and, I suspect, many other Members, the bar would have to be a high one.
Sir William Cash
Does my hon Friend agree that that bar becomes very apparent when dealing with the essential question of sovereignty and whether the EU is recognising sovereignty in the negotiations in the way that was clearly stated in the protocol and in the essential elements of the agreement? We are sovereign and our constitution is special in that respect, compared with some other countries that have provisions in written constitutions.
Sir Robert Neill
Let me put it this way: if my hon. Friend is saying that the test is something akin to that in article 46 of the Vienna convention on the law of treaties, which permits a departure from an international obligation if the violation that causes it is
“manifest and concerned a rule of its internal law of fundamental importance”,
I am not a million miles away from him. It is not an exact analogy and I do not think my hon. Friend was trying to make one, but it would have to be something similarly fundamental.
From my point of view, one could conceive—I use my words carefully—that a Government might be able to persuade the House that there was such a threat to the position of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom, and to the welfare of its economy and people, that one might take such a step. That is why, having thought and hesitated for some time, I am prepared to allow the Government the opportunity to make that case. None the less, it is a high bar, and I have to say that the fact that other jurisdictions—be it the EU or others—may have derogated from international treaties is not of itself persuasive. Many of us would need to be persuaded by the evidence that was brought in relation to the specific circumstances that might trigger the bringing into force of the three clauses under the arrangements set out in Government amendment 66. That is the point and will be the only test that will be relevant.
Mr Carmichael
I have sympathy with the argument that the hon. Gentleman is making, but I have to say that the practicalities will take us in a very different direction. Last week, No. 10 Downing Street was briefing out that the hon. Gentleman and those who agreed with him would have the Whip removed if they followed through on his amendment. That is the pressure under which Government Members will be put. May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that it is possible the Government have accepted his proposition because they see it as something that in practice will not cause them any difficulty?
Sir Robert Neill
I shall make two points to the right hon. Gentleman. First, he knows my record does not indicate that I am always in terror of voting against the Whip. Secondly, if anything like that was being briefed out, I never heard it, it was never said to me and I am shocked that any Government would brief such a thing without saying it to the face of the Members concerned.
Rehman Chishti
I can confirm that when on the Sunday I conveyed to the Government my concerns with regard to aspects of the Bill and said that on Monday I would be resigning as the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief because of real concerns about aspects of the Bill, no one at all from No. 10 ever said that the Whip would be withdrawn; instead, they said that they understood and accepted my decision.
Sir Robert Neill
That does not surprise me; it is consistent with my own experience. I say gently to Opposition Members that the issues at stake are too serious to be part of what might otherwise be an understandable bit of partisan knockabout. That is not what we are talking about.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman mentions the seriousness of the issue; it is that serious that the British Government’s senior Scottish Law Officer, the Advocate General, has resigned. Does the hon. Gentleman really believe that Scottish constituency Members, based on that premise, should walk through the Lobby and vote with the Government?
Sir Robert Neill
It is presumptuous, it seems to me, of the hon. Gentleman to try to suggest how any of my hon. and right hon. Friends might choose to vote, just as it would be presumptuous of me to take a view as to why any Member does or does not remain a member of the Government. I have a very high respect for the noble Lord, Lord Keen of Elie. I just observe that his resignation came before the terms of the Government’s amendment were announced and it was tabled, and before the declaration which the Minister has read out from the Dispatch Box was in the public domain; I perhaps regret the timing of that, but I respect Lord Keen’s position, and that is unchanged, and I do not think relevant to the case that we must make here.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Robert Neill
I must press on now, and not take any further interventions for some time out of respect for others who wish to speak in this debate.
The Government now accept that they must come to the House and make their case. I think that they recognise that that case would have to be a persuasive one, and that the level of breach by the EU—which would have to be a breach of its obligation of good faith, which in turn would be a breach, it seems to me, of the obligations under article 26 of the Vienna convention to operate in good faith—would have to be made out before I and many others would be prepared to vote for such a course, because of the potential consequences for our international reputation and standing. That is why I am prepared to adopt the formulation of the Lord Chancellor that such a thing might be acceptable in extremis. This is not a carte blanche for the Government, and, in fairness, I do not think Ministers have ever taken it as such; I think they know that it weighs heavily to do such a thing. If the Government move amendment 66 at the relevant stage tomorrow, I will be prepared not to press my amendment, but it is to give the Government the chance to make their case as to why such an exceptional step should be necessary.
It is not wise or constructive to conflate the positions of domestic and international law in this debate; they operate in different spheres, and much of what we are looking at would be in relation to treaty law. A test that is not dissimilar—although it can never be exactly the same—to those considered in the Vienna convention is, therefore, not out of the way.
I welcome, too, the fact that the Minister indicated that the measures that would be initiated would include the arbitral provisions under the protocol to the withdrawal agreement. To try to oust those provisions would be a material breach of the agreement on our part, and would be unconscionable. Under certain circumstances the timeframe for that might not be capable of being resolved in such a way that we might not have to take some proportionate and temporary action ourselves to safeguard a vital interest, but I am sure the Minister and the House will note that I choose my words carefully in all those regards. This is not a green light to treating our international obligations lightly or cavalierly; it is an opportunity for the Government to justify why it might be necessary. One cannot give undertakings as to what that might be until we have seen the evidence at the appropriate time, and I am sure the Government know that, too. But I hope that in practice this also has the desirable effect of enabling the negotiations to proceed and, at the end of the day—with good faith on both sides, which I hope, underneath, is still there—we can get an agreement with the European Union and leave on the terms of a deal. That may not be as good as I would have liked, but much of what I have been doing ever since the referendum is trying to mitigate a circumstance that I did not wish for but which I believe has to be addressed head-on for the sake of the country. If we can achieve an agreement, I hope these provisions will be otiose and we will see no more of them. The rest of the Bill is necessary because we need a proper and efficient working of our internal market once we leave the European Union. Therefore, my other motive for adopting the course that I have is not to obstruct the rest of the Bill needlessly.
It is in that spirit—which has, in fairness, been reflected in my exchanges with the Minister—that I set out the case for why the amendment is important to debate and to consider. If the Government are able to deliver in the terms that we have discussed, I will give them the chance to make their case, if it ever be necessary, in the profound hope that we never actually get to that.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
I rise to commend to the Committee amendments 46 to 48, amendment 41 and new clause 7, which stand in the name of the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry).
There has been so much invocation of the Good Friday agreement, in favour and against the measures in the Bill, that I think it bears repeating some of what is and is not contained and implied in that generation-defining agreement. Those who have read the agreement will know that it does not really talk all that much about borders, trade and internal markets, because, frankly, the EU had settled all those things, and in 1998 the prospect of either Government choosing to leave the security, opportunity and prosperity of the EU would have been considered insanity.
Violence was the reason for the continuing fortifications. The Good Friday agreement was the document that articulated most clearly the argument, which had been made by John Hume and others for so many years, that violence was neither needed nor justified. It took the gun out of Irish politics and ensured that the purported justification of those behind the violence was addressed. The agreement was then endorsed by the people of Ireland, north and south, in overwhelming numbers, and endorsed by both Governments, as the only way to achieve your politics. It took away the excuse and put peaceful constitutional views to the fore. It meant that Unionists, nationalists and others could have their views with dignity and that we all had a decent pass forward.
The Good Friday agreement does not say much about borders and trade, but it does say a lot about relationships, aspirations, consensus and respect, and I think that those are the values that unfortunately have been most damaged and will be most damaged by the Bill. The declaration that accompanied the agreement—
Claire Hanna
Do you know what? I will give way, but only once, because for a few years your party held court here, and they were terribly damaging years for Northern Ireland, and it is time that the majority voice, which is against these proposals, was heard.
Ian Paisley
I am delighted that the hon. Member has given way. She casts a considerable aspersion on the Members of her party who were here for several years, but who obviously did not do as good a job in the House as she now purports to be doing, but I will leave that thought with her. Her party is in a coalition Government with my party and with Sinn Féin at the present time—obviously her words about co-operation will now ring very true indeed. Given that her party is in that coalition Government with Sinn Féin, is she actually telling the House that she believes that Sinn Féin or others are on the cusp of going back to terrorism because of what is happening here tonight?
Claire Hanna
No, obviously I am not. Only somebody with absolutely no understanding or who is so disingenuous would ask the question of where the violence comes from as if just a hope is a good enough reason to ride over a solemn peace treaty. Only somebody who either misunderstands or misdirects people would ask such a disingenuous question, and ask it repeatedly. We know that unfortunately there are many people of different political hues who have always sought to use violence as an excuse. That is why my party and others did the heavy lifting to ensure peace, while your party stood outside, waved placards and did everything it could to thwart the Good Friday agreement. So I will take no lectures or disingenuous questions, thank you very much.
The Good Friday agreement did talk about democratic and agreed arrangements, the democratic process and the primacy of the rule of law. It talked about close co-operation as friendly neighbours and partners in the EU. Each strand of the agreement has been damaged by the last few years, and they will be damaged further by the Bill. Strand 1, which deals with internal relationships in Northern Ireland, is damaged by injecting these binary choices and by trespassing into the devolved field. However, I will not, for reasons of time, go over the points that I and others made last Wednesday evening, about what undermining the devolved settlement might do.
Strand 2, which deals with relationships on the island of Ireland, will be utterly undermined by the creeping borderism that will follow from the Bill and the disruption of the north-south frameworks. Strand 3 deals with the east-west relationships, which clearly have been strained almost to breaking point over the past few years. It is because of the primacy of relationships that barriers to trade and aspiration offend the Good Friday agreement. Those who are seeking to say, “It isn’t written down anywhere, so there is no problem here” need to understand that.
The SDLP profoundly regrets the development of any barrier—east-west; the border in the Irish sea—for reasons of trade and economy, but also because we understand that borders have symbolic meaning to people, and we understand that this is particularly hurtful and egregious to those of a Unionist or British identity.
We have enjoyed, for the last 20 years, interdependence and free movement east, west, north and south, and it is Brexit and these decisions that are forcing the choice. It is not re-fighting the last campaign to remind people that the problem is not the protocol, it is not the EU and it is not uppity Irish nationalists, but it is this Government’s failure to choose between a higher degree of alignment with the EU, which offends the European Research Group, the ability to diverge, which will upset and offend people of a Unionist background, and the nuclear option of forcing a hard border on the island of Ireland. Quite clearly, the last two weeks have shown and give some reassurance that the UK will have no trading partners if that is the course it chooses.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
The hon. Member says it is not the fault of the EU, but can we just remind ourselves that it was the United Kingdom Government who gave an absolutely cast-iron guarantee that we would put up no infrastructure on the border between north and south in Ireland? It was the EU that kept threatening to do that, even though alternative arrangements could be developed to obviate that need. I fail to understand why people just do not want to believe that, except that they want to blame the United Kingdom Government, not the EU.
Claire Hanna
It is funny, but we do not hear so much about the alternative arrangements, and this from a party that has us all queuing around the estate because it could not put in place any alternative arrangements for voting. We heard a lot about them for a lot of years, but the magic sovereignty dust that was supposed to solve all of our problems has not yet been produced.
However, it is true that the choices, and they are very difficult choices, are being forced by that Government. We wish that the Government had picked the first of those options. We wish they had picked a higher degree of alignment with the EU, but they did not, and they cannot keep reopening the wound every time they try to deal with the contradictory promises they made. Whatever Bill the Government bring in, the choice will be the same. You cannot opt out of the biggest free trade bloc in the world and then feign shock when the trade is not completely clear, and you cannot refuse to do the first of the two things and then pretend that they are going to happen.
To suggest that any of this is about protecting the Good Friday agreement or the people of Northern Ireland is beyond a parody. We have worked intensively with businesses and other parties to try to address some of the barriers that we accept will exist, but we have to remind the House and others that it is this Government’s choice and the failure of the DUP for the last three years to do anything about those choices that has brought us to this point, and people must own those decisions. The Joint Committee is the place to address those difficulties and those operational issues, and there are the dispute mechanisms.
We see and we very much acknowledge the anxiety that east-west barriers to trade create, but even with the politics and the identity issues stripped out, it is a regrettable fact that the sea border is more practical and more manageable than a border across the island of Ireland, given that there are three such points of entry into Northern Ireland and 108 border crossings between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. I do not say that to be hurtful; I say it because it is true.
I bit my tongue several times during the speech from the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), whose opinion is always considered. I bit it for a number of reasons. Not only because of course your party opposed giving a consent mechanism to the Northern Ireland Assembly on article 50 and opposed giving consent on the sequencing, but because you speak about the sequencing. We have seen what has happened with the gamification of the sequencing and the gamification and using of Northern Ireland as a pawn by the UK Government in order to achieve outcomes and to justify no deal. The last thing I had to bite my tongue about was your saying that the petition of concern is not used as a veto. Members can look it up, but your party has used it 86 times. It used it numerous times to veto, for example, equal marriage for absolutely no reasons of offence to the United Kingdom.
Gavin Robinson
I think the second-last point—the penultimate point—was right, and I agree with the hon. Member. However, on the petition of concern and the cross-community voting mechanisms, she knows the reason they are there. She does not like it when people use them for reasons that she does not agree with, but she knows the reasons they are there. We were not the only ones to use it. We do not have the power to use it by ourselves. But the aspiration for us all must be building consensus.
Claire Hanna
It certainly should. I am not going to rehearse the figures, but I believe that the Democratic Unionist party used the petition of concern approximately two thirds of the time. You do not have the power to use it now because the electorate took that power off you, because it was wielded inappropriately so many times. I am acknowledging very clearly the barriers and impediments that this will create and the intentions of many to try to address those, but whatever the value of trade east-west—I see and acknowledge that value, but it is often cited by people who seem to know the price of everything and the value of nothing—the reality is that there are more people and more units that move up and down the island than move between the two islands. In fact, after 1 January next year, there will be more external crossings into the EU on the island of Ireland than there will be in the rest of the continent’s borders.
Those who support the Bill and the last few years of poor decision making have to acknowledge the intellectual and moral failure in a position that says that a border down the Irish sea is absolutely impossible technically and impossible to bear politically, but that somehow forcing one on the island of Ireland is dead-on, that we can deal with that with a bit of administration and that people are being overly sensitive. Imperfect though I acknowledge the protocol is, it is the baseline protection against the border, so repudiation of the protocol therefore makes a border a lot more likely, and inevitable.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May)—we believe that the clauses we are dealing with today are irredeemable—and I appreciate her interventions very much. Over the few years that she served as Prime Minister, while I frequently did not agree with what she said, I could always acknowledge that she was trying to respect the sensitivities. I respect those who are trying to manoeuvre their party to the right place. I know that that is a very difficult thing to do, particularly when 21 decent MPs were sacked for refusing to vote for the previous Bill, and now they will be sacked if they do vote for the withdrawal agreement—I think that is the sequencing of things.
The amendments that we have tabled seek to protect the protocol and put the commitment to the Good Friday agreement into the Bill. While I appreciate the Minister’s words, my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) has made it clear that the words do not mean anything if you refuse the opportunity to give it legislative effect. Amendment 47 tries to put in place an understanding and an assurance that all of the Bill’s operation will be compatible with all the legislation that underpins the Good Friday agreement. While the UK’s intention is clear—I accept what it is trying to do, but I think it is doing it inappropriately and I do not think it will work—it is about rejecting EU jurisdiction, and the fact is that because of the international treaty that is the Good Friday agreement, international law has jurisdiction in Northern Ireland. That is welcome, and the rights and safeguards in the equality of opportunity section of the Good Friday agreement confirmed the incorporation of the convention on human rights into Northern Ireland law, with direct access to the courts and remedies for breach of the convention, including power for the courts to overrule Assembly legislation on grounds of consistency. That point is echoed again in strand 1 of the agreement, and it must be very clear that my party, certainly, could not and would not have signed up to the Good Friday agreement without those commitments, but this Bill casts them into the wind.
It is clear that we are not talking about narrow and specific breaches. These are going to be open-ended and unchecked powers, and there will not be any qualifications or consultations to test their basis. I sought assurances on Wednesday night from the Minister that there would be limits to the powers, and I did not receive that assurance.
Members may think that this is all a big game of chicken, or a negotiating strategy or whatever with the EU. I urge them to remember the words of the late John Hume, a former Member of this House, who said very clearly, “Victories are not solutions”. The agreement that he designed talked about the obligations of the British and Irish Governments to promote the harmonious and mutually beneficial relationships between the peoples of these islands. I dearly hope that that can somehow still be our future. We are all in the business of trying to deliver solutions for our constituents. I appreciate that some of you are trying to deliver a Brexit and your Brexit deal, however ill-advised I think that is. I am trying to deliver stability and reconciliation in Northern Ireland, but I believe your Bill prevents both of us from proceeding.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Temporary Chair (Sir Graham Brady)
Order. I did not interrupt the hon. Lady, but I would just like to remind Members, especially new ones, that if you say “your”, as in “your party”, it is a reference to my party, and it was not my party. Also, I remind people to use temperate language when they can. There were just one or two instances where the hon. Lady was sailing a little close to the wind. I just say to all Members present that there are still a lot of people on the call list. The closer to five minutes the speeches are, the more of our colleagues will be able to contribute to the debate.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
I will bear your comments on timing in mind, Sir Graham, and try to rattle through. It is a pleasure to follow a very powerful speech from the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna). We may disagree on some quite fundamental things, but I very much welcome her input to this debate.
I rise to support the Bill and the Government amendments, because we need to ensure that goods and trade can flow freely across our United Kingdom without unnecessary barriers. I see regaining control of how we regulate our economy as one of the key benefits of Brexit. That is not because I want any kind of race to the bottom. I want to maintain high standards. In some areas, there is clearly a case for introducing more rigorous regulation, for example to bring an end to the live export of animals for slaughter or fattening, but regaining domestic control over regulation will enable us to produce rules that are more targeted and more effective at tackling the problem they are designed to address, and which we can update more quickly as circumstances change. All those could be crucial in improving our global competitiveness, and in supporting jobs and growth during this time of grave economic damage caused by covid-19.
I spent six years in the European Parliament before coming to this place and I was heavily involved in debates on the creation of new EU regulation. I spent nearly two years of my life on the markets in financial instruments directive. I can say, from seeing the process at first hand, that it is long and painful to produce EU legislation, and that it frequently produces outcomes that are inflexible, bureaucratic, heavy-handed and create unnecessary costs. I believe that in this House and in this nation, we can do better. We can deliver a regulatory system that is more responsive, more agile and more proportionate.
As we have heard from many speakers, and as we well know from the debate over the past year, the Northern Ireland protocol will inevitably have an impact on the flow of goods across the Irish sea. That was one of the most painful compromises that was made in reaching agreement on the withdrawal treaty. Certainly for me that was one of the things I found most difficult in deciding whether I could support it. However, there can be no doubt that the Government are pressing ahead with implementing the protocol. Extensive preparations have been made by the UK Government for a new system for compliance with both customs and sanitary and phytosanitary obligations, as required by the protocol. It is simply not true to allege that the Government, with this proposed legislation, are somehow ripping up the protocol or repudiating the treaty.
What we cannot do is let the European Union run down the clock on securing agreement on the scope of the key concept of goods at risk of being re-exported to the EU, because that would mean a default would kick in requiring customs compliance for all goods coming from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. That, of course, would lead to a full customs border between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, violating article 4 of the protocol. It would also change the status of Northern Ireland within the UK, contrary to the provisions of the Belfast agreement.
Concern about the potential for the EU to adopt an unreasonable and absolutist approach to the question of goods at risk is, frankly, compounded by the Commission’s current refusal to list the UK as a country is deemed fit to export food to the EU. As Environment Secretary, I was able to secure that authorisation in the event that we had left at the end of January without an exit treaty, but I have to say that it was not an easy process. The UK’s compliance with all current EU laws, including on food and animals, should mean that giving us third country status is a straightforward administrative decision, so it is therefore very hard to understand why the EU is withholding consent, for example, for us to export products to the European Union, which it permits from countries with which it has far weaker links and which have, arguably, far less rigorous standards. They include, to take just a few, Russia, Serbia, Chile, Thailand, Ukraine and Cuba. Even the Republic of Iran is on the approved list for certain products.
Stephen Farry
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers). Although I fundamentally disagree with her on Brexit, I certainly recognise her work in Northern Ireland when she was Secretary of State. I refer, in particular, to her work on the Stormont House agreement, though I think it is worth noting that that is another agreement that the Government are in the process of breaching as well.
I primarily want to speak to the amendments of which I am the lead sponsor—amendment 41 and new clause 6—but also to make wider reference to part 5 of the Bill. In brief, amendment 41 seeks to ensure that everything in part 5 is consistent with international law obligations and also with the Good Friday agreement in all of its parts, though it would be preferable to strike clauses 42 to 45 from the Bill in their entirety, but, at this stage, amendment 41 is a catch-all to try to ensure that it is compliant insofar as that is possible. New clause 6 is about putting into law the correct approach to addressing the issue of export declarations and other exit procedures in terms of trying to get a good resolution through the Joint Committee.
I want to make some general comments about the threat to international law that is contained in part 5 of the Bill and to echo that the Government amendment is essentially cosmetic. It does not address the issue. I am someone who is usually a gradualist and who will bank progress, but this is not that type of situation. This will not convince anybody of the UK’s good intentions. In essence, the threat to breach international law will still be codified in the legislation and that is not a basis on which any state can do business internationally. It will undermine the ability of the UK to manage its existing agreements, and also to conclude future agreements. The reputation of the UK internationally will fall with very serious consequences. Our ability to hold other regimes to account for breaches of democracy, human rights and the rule of law will be compromised; and the UK does have a strong record in that regard, or at least had a strong record up until this particular point in time.
More specifically, part 5 will undermine the ability of the UK to conclude a future relationship arrangement with the European Union. That will have severe consequences for the UK economy. To me, it seems as if a dead-end approach is being adopted by those who claim to want such a deal, and I am not quite sure how that will be a sustainable position.
Even beyond that, the prospects of a US-UK trade deal are very much called into question. For those who have the fantasy of an Atlanticist approach to replace the relationship with our nearest neighbour, I really struggle to understand how they believe that the approach they are taking will actually allow that dream to be realised. Of course, we should all want a deal with the United States, albeit one that we negotiate from a position of strength—people have some genuine concerns about that—but I am not sure that people fully appreciate whow difficult that will be, particularly in terms of Congress and what Speaker Pelosi and indeed some members of the Republican party have said. This is an ultimate dead end, and Members who still believe it is doable need to reflect very seriously on what has been said to them.
I will also comment on what I think is a major misunderstanding, or lack of understanding, in some parts of the House with respect to the Good Friday agreement. At times, I get the sense that the Government are almost twisting the understanding of the Good Friday agreement to fit their particular political objectives. It is important that Members understand that a fault line runs right through Northern Ireland. Anyone familiar with history will well appreciate why I am saying that. Northern Ireland is both a divided society and a contested space, particularly with regard to the latter in that there are different constitutional aspirations for the future of that part of the world. We have been on a journey through the Good Friday agreement, but the work of building integration and promoting reconciliation is still very much in progress. More needs to be done.
It is true—this is where the Government are placing all their emphasis—that the principle of consent is a core aspect of the agreement. I concur with that, and indeed it is recognised fundamentally within the withdrawal agreement, although people may have different aspirations regarding where that goes in due course. However, the agreement is also about the interlocking relationships, the internal dynamics in Northern Ireland, the north-south relationship and the east-west relationship, and the wider context of the improvement of Anglo-Irish relations, which gave rise to the agreement in the first place and which, up until now, have been working to try to ensure that the agreement stays on course.
The Temporary Chair (Sir Graham Brady)
Order. It is not possible to speak from those Benches. The hon. Gentleman must find another place in the Chamber.
Paul Girvan
Thank you, Sir Graham. The hon. Member mentioned the protectionism in the Belfast agreement. That is its name: the Belfast agreement. Unfortunately, from a Unionist perspective, the protections that we were sold as ensuring and enshrining our right to be part of the United Kingdom until such time as the people of Northern Ireland decided otherwise are being eroded from below our feet by the withdrawal agreement and the clause associated with Northern Ireland. That has to be recognised. Do you recognise, as a Unionist, that this does not give you much comfort?
Stephen Farry
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his intervention. I think his question was aimed at me, rather than you, Sir Graham. First, just to give Members some encouragement, Members from Northern Ireland can sort out some choreography at times in terms of speaking, so all is not lost entirely, but it is important that the hon. Member appreciates a number of points.
As I said, the principle of consent is hard-wired into the withdrawal agreement. At the same time, however, I think it is naive not to accept that what had been a relatively stable situation in Northern Ireland around the constitutional question has become much more fluid in recent years, to a large extent because of the fallout from Brexit. Whichever way things emerge over the coming months there will be some degree of political instability in that respect, and it is incumbent on us all to try to come to terms with that, to manage that and to keep people on board, making Northern Ireland work over the months and years to come.
I also stress to the hon. Member that another way of looking at the agreement is that it was, in essence, a grand bargain. We are approaching the centenary of Northern Ireland next year. For most of its history, Northern Ireland was a contested state and some people did not accept its legitimacy. We had a situation, for example, where the Irish constitution had a claim on the territory of Northern Ireland through articles 2 and 3.
With the Good Friday agreement, arguably for the first time we had a sense that the vast majority of people on the island of Ireland accepted the legitimacy of Northern Ireland as an entity, albeit with the ability to change recognised as part of that agreement. That was a major win, particularly for Unionism. At the same time, there was a recognition of the interlocking relationships—in particular, the north-south aspect—on the island of Ireland. The problem is that Brexit has come in and destabilised that. In particular I have to say to my Unionist colleagues that their charge headlong into Brexit, given that grand bargain, was most irresponsible and short-sighted.
It would not have been possible for the Good Friday agreement to be concluded if the UK and Ireland were not simultaneously part of the European Union—in particular, the customs union and the single market. The protocol is a product of the UK’s decisions, choices and red lines on Brexit, so if there are concerns, grumbles or complaints about it, it is a product of decisions taken primarily by people in this Chamber over the past number of years.
In essence, there is a trilemma at the heart of this: the UK set out three mutually incompatible objectives, only two of which can be realised at any one time. The first was that there would be an open border on the island of Ireland, the second was that the whole of the UK would leave the customs union and single market, and the third was that special measures for Northern Ireland were ruled out. The first has been a given for the best part of four years, and was rightly recognised at the start of the Brexit negotiations. The second was the determination of this House, which ruled out a softer version of Brexit, with the entire UK remaining part of the customs union and single market—an outcome that would still have been consistent with the referendum result. The third is something that the UK has essentially had to concede through the protocol.
Whatever way we look at this, when a decision was taken to leave the customs union and single market, some sort of interface was going to have to be managed with the European Union’s single market and customs union. The backstop was the first attempt—I believe it was much maligned and a missed opportunity. The protocol was the next alternative, and the Prime Minister bought into it last October. It is an attempt to square an impossible circle, but we have to do our best in that regard; there will not be a neat and easy solution. The protocol is imperfect, but it represents the bare minimum of what is required to address the particular challenges and circumstances that Northern Ireland faces.
Like the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna), I do not want to see any borders anywhere inside these islands, but we have to face the reality that some line will have to be drawn on a map, and wherever it is, some political, emotional and psychological implications will arise from it. It is easier to manage that down the Irish sea than on a land border, as a purely pragmatic analysis of the situation. As has been said, there are seven crossings down the Irish sea, and potentially more than 200 on the land border. People talk about the value of east-west trade, and I certainly recognise that, but the counterpoint to that is to recognise the sheer number of movements on the island of Ireland. The opportunity to have some degree of regulation is more readily applied on the Irish sea interface because there is more dead time, in terms of air and sea travel, than there is on the land border, with land-based transport and much more just-in-time delivery. Those are the sad choices that we are being asked to face up to in Northern Ireland.
We need to make the protocol as light touch as we can to move from what is essentially a solid line on a map to a dotted line. We need to work through the Joint Committee to address the outstanding issues and agree the future relationship. That would make the application of the protocol much easier. To make progress in both respects, the UK has to build up the trust and confidence of the European Union. Essentially, the UK is asking the EU to take it on trust that certain procedures that would otherwise be rigorously required under the terms of the protocol can be disapplied, with flexibilities and modifications shown. The situation with the UK threatening to breach the very withdrawal agreement that gives rise to the protocol will not give the European Union confidence that the UK will honour any flexibilities that it chooses to grant through the protocol.
New clause 6 sets out perhaps one example of the type of situation I am referring to. In essence, the protocol reflects the fact that Northern Ireland remains part of the UK’s customs territory, but the EU customs code is applied down the Irish sea. That was the compromise—I stress that—worked out last year by the Prime Minister, among others.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I am conscious that everyone needs to get in, so I will try to be as brief as possible. Most of the things I will say have probably already been said and certainly will be said in the course of the debate. I make no claim to uniqueness.
I rise to support the Government’s Bill with particular reference to clauses 40 to 45, which we are considering today. After all, the free flow of goods and trade in the UK is critical and is part of the constitutional settlement—the settlements between Ireland and GB and, later, Northern Ireland and, earlier, Scotland and England. Those principles are at the core of what we believe and what we consider to be immutable, and therefore they cannot be changed. There are areas in the protocol that, if improperly used, could affect those principles, and that cannot be allowed.
I remind colleagues that in the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020—nobody seems to have referenced this—our potential intentions were very clear in section 38, which was part of the legislation when it was passed. As I recall, the Opposition did not vote against that provision. If that was the case, it sent a very strong signal to the EU that there was every likelihood that we considered that constitutional settlement in the UK to be above the implementation of the withdrawal agreement, should the agreement end up damaging the settlement. That was quite clear. In fact, it was so clear that when the 2020 Act had passed both Houses, interestingly the EU still went ahead and ratified its end of the agreement through the European Parliament, knowing full well that that was in the Act. If the EU disagreed with that provision or disagreed with the principle, it should not have ratified the treaty at its end, but it made no bones about it and did it.
The effect of clauses 40 to 45 is just to protect the basic implementation of the UK’s internal market in terms of its constitution. I recognise the concerns of my colleagues in Northern Ireland about the application of state aids in Northern Ireland as well, but in this case the provisions allow state aids in Great Britain to be dispensed under the framework devised in this country, and not elsewhere. It seems intolerable to me that we should leave the EU only to find that it has hold of us in a number of ways that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) said, were categorically never the intention.
I do not believe that the Bill actually breaks international treaties, particularly not at this stage. I think article 46 in the Vienna convention on the law of treaties is clear about that. These things are always open to interpretation —I accept that—and different lawyers will take different views, but generally I think that at this stage in particular the Bill does not do that. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) was clear that that was one of the reasons he is prepared to go along and accommodate the Government on this point, and that is quite reasonable.
The combined effect of article 4 of the withdrawal agreement and section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 is that key parts of the withdrawal agreement and the NIP are already part of domestic law. That therefore makes it impossible for the Government, should they see that the EU is not acting in good faith at this point, to ensure that there is, in a sense, a backstop.
I raised a point with the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) earlier about the EU’s behaviour in this. My point was not, “Look, the EU doesn’t always recognise international law, as applied internally, and therefore we shouldn’t.” That was not the point. The point I was making was that we talk a lot about trust, and there is a lot of debate here about trust, with people saying, “The UK will lose all trust should it do this; no one will ever trust us again”—I do not believe a word of that, by the way, because so many other countries, including the UK, have previously breached international law, for lots of good reasons—but the EU binds it in that it is its right to breach international law.
That was very clear, as I said earlier, in Kadi v. Council and Commission in 2008. The Advocate General made it very clear that the EU does not necessarily have to bind into international treaties with direct effect if they clash with its constitutional settlement. They do so time and again, which has given us a very long list of occasions when the EU has done just that and refused to implement all or part of international treaties. I do not extol its virtues in that regard; I simply regard that as a reality.
What does that say? Does the rest of the world say that the EU cannot be trusted in international agreements? So far, apparently not. So far, it has done deals with a number of different countries and not one of them has said, “We don’t trust you, because you breach international law,” which it does. But the UK has also breached international law. In fact, it was a Labour Government that refused to implement, in about 2005, as I recall, prisoners’ voting rights, which came directly from the European Court of Human Rights. All that happened was that the Government said no. It took 10 years before that was resolved. It was not resolved because the UK Government—I think at that stage it was a Conservative Government and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) was Prime Minister—implemented it. No, they negotiated again over its implementation and observance, and came up with a fudge.
That is the point about international law: it is not always directly applicable by the letter. Ultimately, when it is not agreed that things should be brought in, they require negotiation subsequently. That is why I say that my right hon. Friends in the Government are absolutely right to use these clauses of the Bill to make it clear to the European Union that, should it wish to pursue the line that it does not agree to work hard in the Joint Committee to resolve these matters about application, which are always a problem, the UK still reserves its right not to breach its own constitutional settlement, which is a primary cause of most breaches of international law around the world.
Mr Harper
I intervene only because the prisoner voting issue is one that I remember very well, because I was then the Minister responsible for that policy area. Indeed, our friend David Cameron, who was then the Prime Minister, made it clear in his interview last week that his view is not as firm as some former Prime Ministers, because he recognises that there are these clashes. His point was that we should not break our commitments as a first course, but that having that as a backstop, with parliamentary control, is actually something worth considering. The example that my right hon. Friend gave is a very sound one.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
That is why I gave way to my right hon. Friend—because he was there. I think he was a very good Minister too, by the way, for what it is worth.
The point is that for 10 years, Labour Governments and other Governments simply refused to put prisoners’ voting rights through. Finally, there was a fudge negotiation, where not all of what was asked for was agreed, but it was agreed that what had been done, I think on furlough—as I recall, prisoners on furlough had voting rights—was okay. That was not what was asked for.
Let us not be too pompous about this idea that international law is some God-given gospel that says, “Absolutely nobody can ever trespass away from this.” Many of these things are fudged anyway, and implementation is very important. I come back to section 38, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) initiated. That made it very clear that we would, if necessary, place our constitutional law ahead of both of those.
I make that point because in truth, we are now in exactly that state. That is why I believe that I can happily vote for this tonight. I am happy that, following the debate between my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and the Government, they have tabled amendment 66, which will give Parliament a chance to say yea or nay when the moment comes. But we are not in breach until we decide to implement this. This has been done before. It is important to show that we want to do this if necessary, but we would rather find an agreement between the parties.
I come back to the point that I made about good faith in principle. I see that Monsieur Barnier has threatened our negotiators that, if they do not agree with him—he has not, by the way, wanted to move anywhere near the Joint Committee to discuss these matters—the EU will, if necessary, not give us the status of third country. That seems a bizarre threat to make. The list of third countries, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) mentioned, is long and peculiar. Belarus, for example, which we watch almost nightly on the television, would have third country status. We would not have it, apparently. Others include the Central African Republic, China, the Islamic Republic of Iran—the list goes on. I think there are now 137 countries that would have third country status, but apparently to Mr Barnier, it would be quite acceptable for a country that has been very close to the EU for years to not have third country status. I think it is a hollow threat, but it is a peculiar threat to make, and it gives an indication of bad faith.
The EU is meant to avoid bad faith in this, and so are we. The whole idea of the Bill is to say, “Stop. Let’s consider this again. We do not want—and you should not want—to end up in a situation where we are running around on your laws. This is not what the agreement was meant to be, and we are not prepared to see our constitutional settlement trashed in the pursuit of your own vainglorious idea that somehow you’re going to keep hold of us and run us afterwards.” As my right hon. Friend said, we did not vote to be a subsidiary state; we voted for independence. That is the key point.
I am going to vote for this Bill, and I vote for it with a clean heart. I vote for it because so many areas—from state aid, to transfer of goods and agriproducts to labelling—will be affected unnecessarily. If the EU seriously wants to help and to get this done, it needs to return to the table, go into the Joint Committee as it said it would and accept what we are saying: we will not allow our constitution to become the prisoner of an EU that wants to have all power over the UK.
Joanna Cherry
I rise to speak in favour of amendments 43 and 44, in my name, and to support the amendments tabled by the Scottish National party, our friends from the SDLP and our friend from the Alliance party.
I will focus my comments on my amendments, which I tabled to work out just how far this Government are prepared to go in ousting the jurisdiction of the domestic courts in relation to judicial review and review under the Human Rights Act in clause 45, as it appears on the face of the Bill. I also wish to highlight, as I mentioned in an intervention on the Minister, that, in so far as clause 45 seeks to restrict judicial review in Scotland by circumscribing the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court of Session, this not only trespasses into devolved territory but may well breach another treaty: the treaty of Union between Scotland and England, article 19 of which preserves the independence of the Scottish legal system.
Before I address my amendments in detail, for the avoidance of doubt, my primary position—and I find myself curiously on the same ground as the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May)—is that clauses 41 to 45 should not stand part of the Bill. Everything we heard from the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) was designed to hide from us the fact that we are talking about a bilateral treaty that was entered into by the Prime Minister and the United Kingdom less than a year ago, to deal with a specific situation that arose between the United Kingdom and the European Union; and the most controversial part of that treaty—the one dealing with Northern Ireland and the north of Ireland—is the one that this Government are seeking to drive a coach and horses through. That is what we are talking about, and that is what is so wrong.
Joanna Cherry
I will make some progress.
Such excuses as those that the Government’s Law Officers who remain in post have sought to make for this do not stand up. I am very proud, as a member of the Scottish Bar, that Lord Keen of Elie resigned last week, and I am proud of the reasons he gave for his resignation. The only thing I would say to him is, “What took you so long, Richard?”, but apart from that I am very proud. I think it will be very difficult for the British Government to find anybody of suitable seniority from the Scottish Bar to step into his shoes, but I am waiting with some amusement to see who they might find.
Joanna Cherry
No, I am going to make some progress.
It is what we would call at the Scottish Bar a load of old mince. That is not just my view; as I said in an intervention, it is the view of the United Kingdom Supreme Court, which said in the first Miller case, at paragraph 55, that
“treaties between sovereign states have effect in international law and are not governed by the domestic law of any state.”
I am terribly sorry to disappoint Conservative Members, but no matter how much they love their doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty—no matter how much it means to them—it cannot trump the obligations freely entered into by their Government under international law.
Joanna Cherry
No, I am not going to give way.
It simply does not work that way: Britannia does not rule the waves any longer and has not done so for some time.
I regret to say that while I have the greatest respect and the highest regard for the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), the Government amendment that his efforts have secured is wholly inadequate to meet both domestic and international concerns about this Bill. I cannot do much better than repeat what the Irish Foreign Minister said this afternoon: a Government with an 80-seat majority having a parliamentary lock is not much of a reassurance to any of us. I really do not think I need to say any more than that. Once more, we have a ruse to solve the problems of the Conservative party rather than a ruse to address our international legal obligations.
My amendments 43 and 44, as I said, seek to deal with clause 45. The English Bar Council and the Law Society of England and Wales have said of clause 45 that it
“would exclude judicial review of any regulations made under clauses 42 and 43 on grounds of incompatibility with domestic law…as well as international law.”
That exclusion of judicial review would also mean excluding any human rights review under the Human Rights Act or, indeed, the Equality Act 2010. As my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) said in her very eloquent speech, human rights are of course integral to the Good Friday agreement. It is a travesty that regulations made under clauses 42 and 43 should not be subject to judicial review or to human rights review across Great Britain, but a particular travesty in Northern Ireland. It undermines not just the principle of the rule of law but the principle of access to justice. It also contravenes article 4 of the withdrawal agreement, which the British Government freely signed up to, in which they undertook to ensure a right for individuals to rely directly on withdrawal agreement provisions.
It is difficult to be certain how the courts would interpret an ouster clause such as clause 45, but precedent suggests that it would be quite hard for them to uphold it unless it is expressed in unequivocal terms. My amendments seek to clear this up. Amendment 43 would exclude the Human Rights Act and the European convention on human rights from the definition of domestic and international law, and amendment 44 would ensure that
“nothing in Clause 45 ousts the jurisdiction of domestic courts in respect of judicial review of regulations made under Clauses 42 and 43.”
Subsequent to my tabling those amendments, the Government tabled amendments 64 and 65, which appear to acknowledge that judicial review claims could still be brought in certain limited circumstances. I am interested to hear from the Minister what those circumstances would be. Do they include the normal judicial review grounds of illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety, or will they also include review on the grounds of human rights? I look forward to hearing from him on that.
My final point is the most important point from a Scottish point of view. In so far as clause 45 seeks to interfere with judicial review in Scotland, it is interfering with a rather different beast from judicial review in England: the inherent supervisory jurisdiction of the Court of Session in Edinburgh. In doing that, it strays into devolved territory and would therefore require a legislative consent motion, which I very much doubt would be forthcoming. Put simply, the Scottish Parliament is not in the business of ousting the court’s jurisdiction on judicial review or human rights grounds—nor should it be and neither should this Parliament.
Most importantly from a Scottish point of view, the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court of Session is an inherent jurisdiction, which is not conferred on it by legislation but has been there since its inception in 1532. It therefore predates the treaty of Union between Scotland and England in 1707. Legislation seeking to narrow the scope of that inherent jurisdiction risks falling foul of article 19 of the treaty of Union, which preserves the independence of Scotland’s legal system.
In Scotland, rather to our surprise, we learned from the UK Supreme Court that putting the Sewel convention on a legal footing did not protect us from the Government driving a coach and horses through it. As the legal position stands in the United Kingdom, it seems that the Government can get away with passing primary legislation that interferes in devolved matters without a legislative consent motion. A breach of article 19 of the treaty of Union might be a different matter, however, because the question of whether parts of the treaty are so fundamental that they cannot be overridden by an Act of this Parliament has been considered by courts north and south of the border, but never entirely resolved.
I simply remind Members that the doctrine of the supremacy of Parliament is an English doctrine. Even Dicey, the great high priest of parliamentary sovereignty, was prepared to recognise that those who framed the treaty of Union between Scotland and England believed in the possibility of creating an absolute sovereign legislature that was still bound by certain unalterable laws. Many of us in Scotland believe that one of the unalterable laws of the treaty of Union is that this Parliament cannot interfere with the inherent jurisdiction of the Court of Session.
Both those problems—the in-roads into the devolved competence and the undermining of article 19 of the treaty of Union—will continue, notwithstanding Government amendments 64 and 65. I suspect that the Government have not really thought about that because, let us be honest, they do not often think about the impact on Scotland of what they want to do. Many people in Scotland, including my fellow members of the legal profession, will see that as another example of the Government’s total disregard for devolution and for Scotland’s separate and distinct institutions.
That is yet another reason why for Scotland the only way out of the mess that the Conservative and Unionist party has created over Europe is independence. I am glad that so many more people in Scotland are realising that daily. [Interruption.] It is a terrible dreadful bore for Conservative Members, but I remind them that we spend an awful lot of time listening to them bang on about the European Union and how it prevents them from having their way. Well, the Scots are pretty sick of this Parliament preventing Scotland from having its way.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
From a historical perspective, my hon. and learned Friend may agree that we need to go back to the 15th or 16th century, because this is a modern-day English reformation that seeks to impose in Scotland a modern-day Brexit prayer book. The Kirk rejected it then and Scotland will reject it now.
Joanna Cherry
That is correct, and it is worrying to hear my hon. Friend talk about the Kirk as he and I were both brought up in the opposite persuasion, but of course the Church of Scotland is also protected by the treaty of Union. So Members on the Government Benches can mock away; they should feel free to continue their mocking, which is seen in Scotland, and simply feeds the desire for Scotland to go a different way. They should keep up the mocking, because it is helping my party’s cause and it is helping the cause of my country.
Karen Bradley
It is an honour to rise today in this debate, following a number of very thoughtful contributions from right hon. and hon. Members across the Chamber. Although it is an honour to be called to speak today, I cannot pretend that it is an enjoyable experience, and that is because of the conflict that I feel. I feel desperately uncomfortable. I want to support the Prime Minister and the Government, and I know how the Minister feels. I have sat on that Front Bench far too many times, knowing that people behind me did not agree with my position.
I want to support the Prime Minister. I want to see the whole United Kingdom leave the European Union, respecting the referendum result, but I am desperately uncomfortable about being asked to vote to break international law. My instinct tells me that what the Government are asking me to vote for tonight is not the right thing to do or, to be charitable, may not be doing things in the right way.
The Government have been clear—they are on the record—that paragraph (5) is a breach of the withdrawal agreement, and we are angels dancing on the head of the pin as to when the law is broken. The law will be broken, if these clauses are used. It might be at Royal Assent, or it might be at commencement of the Act. It might be when the order is laid after the parliamentary vote—I thank the Government for agreeing to respect that and for agreeing to that amendment. I would like to hear from the Minister exactly what the Government’s position is now as to when the law will be broken, because no parliamentarian wants to walk through the Lobby knowing they are about to break the law.
Much has been made of the role that respecting the Belfast Good Friday agreement has in this debate. Let us be clear: the Belfast Good Friday agreement was the result of great statecraft and the power of words over violence, but it was also a triumph of compromise—or, as I used to be told I had to call it, accommodation. It was a settlement that meant that people living in Northern Ireland could be comfortable in their own identities, be that British, Irish, both or neither. As the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) said earlier, it was written at a point when both the UK and Ireland were members of the EU. I want to be absolutely clear: the Belfast Good Friday agreement was not contingent on our both being members of the European Union. It was a result of great statecraft, compromise and people being prepared to lead, and it would have happened if both countries had not been members of the same economic bloc. But the fact that both countries were EU members meant that the foundations of the Belfast Good Friday agreement—the Northern Ireland Act 1998 that this House passed—were written without the need to deal explicitly with matters that European citizenship and membership conferred. There was no need to write about citizens’ rights and how somebody who identifies as Irish and lives in Northern Ireland can exercise their right to be a member of the European Union when the country in which they reside is no longer a member of the European Union. It did not go into the points on customs and declarations. It did not talk about that because it did not need to. In fact, the reason we have the Bill—and I want to make it clear that I support the Bill as a whole; it is part 5 with which I have a problem— is because we need it, as the settlements on devolution were written at a time when we were a member of the European Union. We did not need frameworks on agriculture, because matters that will be settled by the devolved Administrations were governed by rules in Brussels.
I support our taking back control of those matters. Again, I have to make it absolutely clear that this has nothing to do with leaving the European Union. It is about how we make sure that we do so in the right way, so that I can hold my head up high and look people in the eye and say that I am proud to be a parliamentarian in this Parliament, which respects the rule of law. We have to remember that the world will judge us by the way in which we respect the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, even more than our breaking the withdrawal agreement.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
On the reputation of the United Kingdom and the identity of Irishness and Britishness in Northern Ireland, why was it up to Emma DeSouza to drag the right hon. Member’s Government through the courts fully to exercise their rights to identify as Irish and their rights as a European Union citizen in the High Court in Northern Ireland?
Karen Bradley
The hon. Gentleman would have to take up the reasons why the case was taken with the lady in question, but the DeSouza case is a clear example of how the Northern Ireland Act 1998 did not address these matters. I have been clear, in many interventions since I left my post last summer and while I was in post, that respecting the right of everybody who lives in Northern Ireland to identify in the way that they are comfortable with is incredibly important and we must respect it. So I say to the Minister: part 5 should not be in this Bill. The Government should not ask MPs to vote for an illegal law as a negotiating tactic. This part should be in a separate Bill, if these clauses are needed, and it should be debated separately; it should not be polluting what is otherwise a good and necessary piece of law. All possible steps to avoid needing these clauses should be taken.
I say to the Minister that I am undecided as to which way I will vote this evening, because I respect the fact that Government have moved and compromised, and I understand that that is a difficult thing for Governments to do. But I ask the Minister to give me clarity: if I walk through the Lobby today, am I breaking the law? If I walk through the Lobby today, will the law be broken as a result of my doing so? Will I have the answer for me at 3 am, not for my constituents or others, that I have done the right thing and that this will lead to a better result for the UK?
Hilary Benn
It is a great pleasure to follow that fine speech by the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley). I want to concentrate on how we get out of this mess without breaching international law and the treaty we signed up to. Four issues have caused all this: the question of exit summary declarations, the definition of “at-risk goods”, state aid and third country listing. The Bill deals with only some of those; further legislation is threatened to deal with the rest, but one has to look at them together.
The first thing I want to say is that it seems the Government are in a state of hopeless confusion on two questions. The first is: is the EU negotiating in good faith or not? I asked the Prime Minister that last week at the Liaison Committee and he told me it is not. Earlier that same day, the Northern Ireland Secretary told the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee that the EU is negotiating in good faith, and indeed the Government’s response to that Committee’s report confirmed that. I do not know whether that makes the Minister, for whom I have a great regard, the adjudicator in this matter, but perhaps he might offer his opinion in his wind-up, because the Government do not appear to be of one mind.
Secondly, I believe the Minister referred in his speech—I tried to write down the phrase as I recall it—to, “Harmful legal defaults that were never intended to be used” or words to that effect. If they are legal defaults that the Government object to, it really does raise the question: why did the Government sign up to those legal defaults when they negotiated the protocol and the withdrawal agreement, and signed that and extolled its virtues to the House of Commons?
On exit summary declarations, there is a place for this and other concerns to be resolved, which is in the Joint Committee, through the article 16 process. The House needs to ask itself why the Government have said so little thus far about their intention to use article 16 if a satisfactory agreement cannot be reached; I did not get an answer from the Prime Minister last week and, with respect, I did not get an answer from the Minister today, but it seems that the Government have so little faith in the mechanism they negotiated that they have decided that they need to take powers to breach the terms of the treaty, even though—I remind the Minister—article 168 of the withdrawal agreement says that, “For any dispute between the EU and the UK arising under this agreement, the EU and the UK shall ‘only’ have recourse to the procedures provided for in this agreement. This Bill drives a coach and horses through that sentence, which the Government agreed. In the statement that Ministers put out last week, the Government said that they would use the provisions of article 16 “in parallel with” the powers they wish to take in this Bill. In parallel? I really do not understand that as an argument, because surely they should use the mechanism they have negotiated first, and then if they are absolutely determined to break international law, they can get to that subsequently.
I come back to the point about the Joint Committee. Why have the Government not shared with the House the proposals they have made to the EU side about how goods at risk can be identified? It is simply not good enough. Part of the reason why the Government have got into such a mess is that they have not shared with us how the negotiations are going and have then suddenly produced a remedy that is contrary to international law to solve a problem the contents of which we are not aware of because Government have not shared with Members how things are going.
This is not an academic issue: many businesses that trade into Northern Ireland have absolutely no idea, with just over three months to go, of what the arrangements are going to be—none. There is a responsibility on both parties—the EU and the UK—to give them some clarity. Have the Government proposed using, for example, tariff lines as the way to define goods at risk? Or products and shipments, or companies as the basis? To those who have looked into the issue in great detail, it seems that those are probably the three broad approaches that might be taken. I ask the Government to please be open with the House of Commons on this matter.
On state aid, I find it impossible to believe that the Government did not realise what the full implications of article 10 might be. Everybody recognised that it brought into the ambit of the state aid rules what happens in Northern Ireland, but had it really not occurred to Ministers that there might be reach-back—I think that is the expression—implications for state aid in the United Kingdom? This is currently a theoretical issue, because there are not any cases. The Minister will be well aware that in the wake of covid, the EU Commission has significantly relaxed the state aid rules. Other EU members are giving state aid to all sorts of companies. The question is how the matter is going to be resolved by means other than resorting to the breaking of international law.
There is a great puzzle in respect of the Government’s position. When the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster appeared before the Select Committee on the Future Relationship with the European Union on 11 March and we asked him whether businesses that trade out of England into Northern Ireland were going to be subject to the full panoply of state aid regulations, he replied:
“No, we do not believe so.”
That was in March, but apparently the Government do now believe so. What happened between March and now to lead them to that conclusion?
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster also said:
“The subsidy regime that the UK proposes to put in place after we have left the EU”—
we have now left the EU—
“will be one that the EU will recognise as a robust system.”
Here we are in September, and of a robust system for state aid there is no sight yet. How can that be the case? We read reports in the paper that the reason is because Ministers cannot agree on what kind of state aid policy they want.
The publication of such a policy is urgent for two reasons: not only for the purposes of sorting out the problem of potential reach-back, but for making a breakthrough in the trade negotiations. To be fair to the EU, it has moved from saying at the beginning, “You must follow all our rules on state aid in perpetuity,” to now saying rather plaintively to the Government, “Would you be so kind as to give us just an inkling of what your state aid regime is going to look like?” To announce that we are going to follow the World Trade Organisation rules is hardly a revelation, because as an independent member of the WTO we are obliged to follow the WTO rules. As we know, though, they lack important details and do not cover services.
The sooner the Government publish a state aid regime to answer the EU’s question, the sooner they can help the trade negotiations to move forward. Assuming that an agreement could be reached on that regime as part of the negotiations, the Government could, as the Minister will know, use article 13(8) of the withdrawal agreement to amend article 10, which is the cause of the potential problem—namely, reach-back.
The Bill does not deal with third-country listing, and no Bill could, because it is a regulatory decision of the European Union about the terms on which it lets third-country food and animal product imports into its jurisdiction. I happen to think that if the EU were to deny us such listing, arguably the UK could take the EU to the European Court, on the grounds that it was a perverse decision, or indeed the UK could certainly invoke article 16, on the grounds that denying the UK third-country listing was a breach of the good faith obligation under article 5.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Temporary Chair (Sir Graham Brady)
Order. I remind the Committee that there are still a great many Members on the call list. I therefore urge brevity, in the interests of all those waiting to speak.
Rehman Chishti
It is a real pleasure and a privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), for whom I have huge admiration and respect. I sat in this Chamber on 2 December 2015 and listened to his speech on countering Daesh in Iraq and Syria. He took a principled position then, as the shadow Foreign Secretary, and it was one of the best speeches this House has heard.
I also agree with the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the comments of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who said on 8 September that what was being proposed in the Bill
“does break international law in a very specific and limited way.”—[Official Report, 8 September 2020; Vol. 679, c. 509.]
That is completely and utterly unacceptable. I am also a lawyer, and I will refer to that comment a little further in my speech.
I accept that the majority of the Bill is necessary for an effective United Kingdom single market when we are no longer subject to EU rules. I campaigned for Brexit, my constituency voted 65% to deliver Brexit, and my voting record is the same as that of the Prime Minister and many of those who sit in Cabinet with regard to delivering Brexit. Brexit meant many things to many people, but for me it was about sovereignty. The British public elect their Members of Parliament, who have the final say on the laws that govern our country and our citizens. But Brexit must be delivered in the right way, respecting the United Kingdom’s commitment to the rule of law, and as a country that stands by the word it gives. That cannot be compromised on.
I have real concerns about clauses 42, 43 and 45 of this Bill. Brexit was about sovereignty—taking back control of our laws, borders and money—but under those provisions, we would defer that authority to Ministers, who could then, unilaterally, withdraw from an international agreement passed by this House. How can that be sovereignty? It cannot. I agreed with the former Attorney General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), when he gave his speech to this House on 14 September, about those three specific provisions. He is a great man, and I had the privilege to be his Parliamentary Private Secretary when he was the Attorney General.
For me, there can be no compromise about one’s core beliefs, and my core belief is a respect for the rule of law. If you give your word, you have to honour it. What the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said on 8 September—we sat in our parliamentary offices, and we listened to him—is that
“this does break international law in a very specific and limited way.”—[Official Report, 8 September 2020; Vol. 679, c. 509.]
What are we saying to our citizens—that they can break other laws in a specific and limited way? Our country is going through difficult, challenging times and we are asking people to adhere to guidance, yet we have a Minister of the Crown saying that from the Dispatch Box.
There is something called honour, and for me I could not serve as the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief. I conveyed that message to the Government last Sunday, and I was told that the Government would not be accepting the amendment put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill). On that basis, on Monday I took the decision to resign my position. We talk about being patriotic, and our national anthem says:
“Long may she reign. May she defend our laws”—
and “defend our laws” is what this is about.
I am grateful to have been the Prime Minister’s special envoy. It was a real privilege and honour to serve as the United Kingdom’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief. We took forward 17 different recommendations of the 22 in the Truro report, but I also helped, along with the United States and the ambassador from the Netherlands, to set up the international alliance to promote freedom of religion or belief around the world. We used to say to countries, “Respect article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights”. People can have whatever faith they want or no faith, but others must respect that.
Hon. Members would expect the Prime Minister’s special envoy for the United Kingdom to go along to the table and say, “I think we should do this at the Security Council or we should that at the United Nations General Assembly. We should do this at the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe or we should do that at Human Rights Council.” But after what the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said at the Dispatch Box on 8 September, how can one go and lecture others when we are in this situation?
The question people ask me is: why, then, are you supporting Government amendment 66? I am supporting amendment 66 for this reason. If we look at the Order Paper on Monday 14 September and Tuesday 15 September, we see that amendment 4 put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst had only 13 signatories. That amendment is for parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament should decide: this Parliament enacted its support of the withdrawal agreement, and if it now wants to come out of it, this Parliament should say so, not defer that to Ministers. However, only 13 Members of Parliament had signed it. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, and I am also grateful to the likes of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), who came in in 2019, who signed the amendment.
The amendment asks for parliamentary sovereignty, but on Monday the Bill passed by 77 votes in this House, so how do I know I can get 40 votes to overturn clauses 42, 43 and 45, which I could never accept. No hon. Member would accept clauses 42, 43 and 45, so when we are in that position, do we accept amendment 66, rather than the amendment put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, being pragmatic and being reasonable? I say this as someone who for three years, from 2004 to 2007, worked with the former Prime Minister of Pakistan who lost her life fighting for democracy, going to discussions in the Foreign Office with the Foreign Secretaries Jack Straw and David Miliband and looking at the transition to democracy. There always has to be give and take, being pragmatic and being realistic. On that basis, to avoid having to put clauses 42, 43 and 45 in the Bill, I support the proposals in Government amendment 66 for parliamentary oversight.
I want to finish with a quote, Sir Graham. I know time is of the essence. Parliamentary sovereignty and parliamentary scrutiny are of the utmost importance to each and every one of us. We are all among equals. We all have a voice. We take into account the views of our constituents, and we come here and we represent them. Over summer, I read a brilliant quote from 2010 by a former Member of Parliament, before I came to this House. I will read the quote. Some will recognise the person. He is a man of great integrity and he did the right thing. This is what he said about taking Parliament seriously:
“a word to the coming generation of politicians. I have one simple message: take Parliament seriously. If we, the elected, do not, why should anybody else? By all means…support the programme on which one’s party was elected, but we are not automatons. We are not sent here merely to be cheerleaders, or to get stiff necks looking up at the fount of power. We are here to exercise our judgment—to hold Ministers to account for the powers they hold. And that means proper scrutiny. It means insisting that Ministers engage seriously with Parliament, and that they are open to dialogue.”—[Official Report, 25 March 2010; Vol. 508, c. 486.]
On that basis, I am grateful to the Prime Minister for listening, engaging and ensuring that we have amendment 66, should these matters come before the House and if the United Kingdom ever deviated from its commitment. Initially, the provisions were put forward under statutory instruments, under which the Government could have put forward a 90-minute affirmative motion, with the Minister standing at the Dispatch Box for an hour. Please, as I tried to ask him earlier, will the Minister clarify that when and if this comes back to the House, there will be a full debate, with as many Members of Parliament who need to speak being able to?
One of the great things I did was to represent our country at the canonisation of St John Henry Newman, a great British saint with global impact. I will end by quoting his “Lead, Kindly Light”:
“…I do not ask to see
The distant scene; one step enough for me.”
When and if the Government look to bring these measures forward, please do it so that there are appropriate checks and balances at every level by this House.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
It is good to follow the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti). I congratulate him on the moral choice of resigning from the Government, although I remind him that when it comes the law of the country, there is the law of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
As a Scottish nationalist, I have often tried to stick to our maxim of leaving Ireland to the Irish, but in these constitutionally fraught times I feel it is necessary to remind the British Conservative and Unionist party of the histories and stories across these islands that give us an understanding of where we find ourselves today. We can be in no doubt that this Government will seek to portray this perfidious power grab as actually strengthening the devolution settlement, which so many of us have fought so hard to secure, but we know very well from the history of Northern Ireland that rewriting devolution by decree is simply unsustainable.
Let us move beyond the bluff and bluster of this Government’s Front Bench and the obsequious chatter of their pliant Back Benchers, and remind ourselves very clearly that a Union requires Unionists at both ends. Usually, when I look over to my Scottish Conservative and Unionist opposites—I do not see any here tonight—I see fellow Scots who are equally passionate in their convictions for our nation of Scotland as any on these Benches. They are Unionists who are looking desperately to the south to see their convictions mirrored by English colleagues, but I am afraid that the only colleague they found tonight was the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May).
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Well, Sir Graham, it is difficult to follow that. I remember your enjoinder, Sir, that we should stick to five minutes. So far, nobody has met that challenge. I thought that the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) was going to do so several minutes ago, but he did not.
I rise to support this Bill. I especially support clause 11 and part 5, and amendment 66, the “break glass” amendment. It reflects in all important respects amendment 4, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), the Chair of the Justice Committee. We have all been grateful to him for the consideration that he and others have given to this matter. I appreciate the agony that many hon. and right hon. Members have gone through in trying to work their way through this Bill and reconcile it with their views on international law.
The hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) spoke about values and asserted that our reputation was at stake. Last week, we saw how the UK stands up for international law. We saw a graphic demonstration of our values when perhaps others fall short. In the middle of the channel—not a pleasant place generally speaking, and it certainly was not last week—there was an inflatable dinghy containing 16 Afghan refugees and asylum seekers. They were people in peril on the sea, and they were being shepherded by the French navy not to safety, but to British territorial waters where, of course, eventually they were picked up by Border Force and conducted to a place of safety. I am proud of that, not only because it demonstrates our British values—something that many may be uncomfortable with—but because, in doing that, we were complying with one of the most fundamental of international treaties, the United Nations convention on the law of the sea of 1982. There is no grey in this treaty, no ambiguity, and it strikes at the very heart of what we are in this country. Indeed, it strikes at the very heart of our humanity, because we save life and we ask questions later.
Others have described violations of international law by the European Union and others, and I am certainly not going to rattle them off again. We heard eloquent contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) in which they listed some of the treaties that have been mutable. Clearly, UNCLOS was mutable on the part of our largest continental neighbour last week, but it was not for us and, for me, that is the message that goes to the international community, not some fine debate about this particular measure that we are discussing this evening. That message will have gone out loud and clear and, on that, I am extremely proud indeed. What is clear from the list that others have trotted out is that international law is a contested space, and sometimes it is mutable and can be overwritten.
I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) on this: she said that two wrongs do not make a right, and generally speaking she is absolutely correct, but by listing the occasions on which international law has been breached, written over, mutable or contested, we are setting the context for what we are doing on this occasion. That is something that I think has been lost in this debate. Time and time again, international law has been shown to be not absolute but, on occasion, capable of being overwritten, modified and made mutable by this country, other countries and the European Union.
Generally, we stand by what we sign up to and are as good as our word, so what has changed since last year? I, like many right hon. and hon. Members, have given this some considerable thought. What has changed is the appreciation of the issue of good faith, which ran like a vein through a block of granite throughout all the discussions last year. This works only if the parties act in good faith, and it has become clear over the past several weeks that the European Union side is prepared to regard the Northern Ireland protocol as a lever to get what it wants. It raises the spectre of agrifood being unable to move freely between the nations of the United Kingdom, which is clearly contrary to the Act of Union and drives a coach and horses through the Good Friday agreement. It was not on the table last year, and it calls into question the “acting in good faith” enjoinder, which I have referred to, and which is clearly contained within the withdrawal agreement and its accompanying political declaration.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
I very much agree with my right hon. Friend, but does he agree with me that it is also contrary to the European Union’s conceding to the UK that Northern Ireland is in the UK’s customs territory? That raises additional considerations that are very material to these clauses. I want to take this opportunity to say that of course I shall therefore support the Government.
Dr Murrison
I am very pleased to hear that expression of confidence in this good Bill, which is being made better by the amendment tabled by the Government. I agree with my hon. Friend’s point.
I have already gone over my five minutes, Dame Eleanor, but it is important to note the extreme hardball attitude that the EU has recently adopted and what that says about what might be in store for us in the future. The points that the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) made about state aid are extremely germane to this. I remember well, as Northern Ireland Minister and Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the issues relating to Bombardier. It was plain as a pikestaff that this might be used in the event that the UK decided to support Bombardier in GB, because, as things stand, the EU would claim that it is unfair and unlawful because of Bombardier’s presence in Belfast. That is a clear and present danger.
It is also important to get real about what we are up against. I have every respect for the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), who quite rightly expounded at length on the fact that the negotiation has to be bounded in good will and said that this will cause difficulty for us in Brussels, but I am clear that this negotiation is no love-in. It is a bare-knuckle affair. Pique is never far away, nor is the desire to make an example of an errant UK pour encourager les autres. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stone said, international law is 40% law and 60% politics, as it is here—this is politics in the raw.
I am sorry that, throughout this whole torrid process, hon. and right hon. Members have shackled the UK Government in our negotiations in Brussels. The British public know that. The hon. Member for Sheffield Central shakes his head, but he should know that more than anybody else, because the British public spoke loud and clear on this issue in December. They understand what we often forget in this place, and they get this business in the way that many of us do not. His party needs to learn that lesson. That is why it suffered so badly in December.
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
I will to try to keep within the five minutes, to give time to others. I never intervene in debates on the European Union, and I do not intervene in debates on Northern Ireland, but I felt I had to intervene today on a debate that concerns the rule of law, because I consider it fundamental to the health of our democracy.
I have been an MP for many years. I have sat here feeling pride, joy, uncertainty and anger as we have considered and debated new laws, but never have I felt the shame that I feel today, when we are being asked by our Government to support a proposition that entails Britain deliberately and intentionally breaking international law. The plea of mitigation from some Members today and from the Prime Minister that this is merely a safety net and an insurance policy; the false assertion from the Law Officers that the ministerial code, under which Ministers swear on oath to comply with the law, applies only to domestic legislation; and the fabricated claim by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that this proposed law
“protects, enhances and strengthens our Union and the prosperity of all our people”—[Official Report, 14 September 2020; Vol. 680, c. 127.]
—all those statements are simply plain wrong, and those who made them know that.
We are being asked tonight to support Great Britain breaking the law. The Vienna convention clearly states:
“A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.”
I put it to the Committee that it is the patriotic duty of each and every one of us to vote down this proposal. Great Britain’s global influence, our ability to hold our head up high and even our naked self-interest will all be wrecked by this disastrous proposal to deliberately flout international law. Our post-Brexit ambition to establish our country as global Britain, so that we can be an influential player in world affairs, would be fatally undermined. How could we challenge a corrupt Government or stand up to an aggressive dictatorship? Who would listen when we support the citizens of Hong Kong, challenge the Russians over the Skripal poisoning or defend the Rohingya people in Myanmar if we ourselves flout international law to suit the Prime Minister’s short-term whim?
Today’s FinCEN leaks show that the UK is at the heart of global money laundering and financial crime. How can Britain lead global efforts to combat that if we are not seen as an honest broker or a country that will uphold international agreements? The farce of doing this when it threatens our relationship with the USA, as we see if we read Joe Biden’s tweet or listen to Nancy Pelosi’s comments, beggars belief. To deliberately put this key friendship at risk and deliberately jeopardise a trade deal with the USA is utterly irresponsible and unpatriotic. I say to those on the Government Benches who were brave enough to voice their opposition last week, “Don’t be bought off by a shabby and dishonest compromise. Don’t stand on the head of a pin and be beguiled into thinking that a vote for the amendment means that we’re not actually legislating to break our international legal obligations.”
Once the power to break the law is on the statute book, it is there—no nuances, no ifs or buts, and no kicking the can down the road. Every MP who votes for these clauses will be voting against the rule of law. We are being sucked in as accomplices to the Government’s reckless bid to undermine the rule of law, and that goes for our Law Officers. They should hold their heads in shame at not resigning and speaking out against this irresponsible move. Yet this move is part of a consistent pattern of behaviour: disdain for the judiciary, contempt for us here in Parliament, animosity towards civil servants and loathing of the BBC.
This Government approach their work as if it were a game in which they attack the pillars of our democracy simply to gain a mendacious, populist headline. Their latest target is the rule of law, but it is Britain’s long-term future that is at stake tonight. There is nothing decent, honourable or patriotic about playing roulette with the rule of law. Breaking it will destroy our reputation, integrity, authority and influence on the world stage. I urge every hon. Member of Parliament to vote against this outrageous proposal.
David Warburton (Somerton and Frome) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to contribute to a debate with such significant implications. I will be brief; I reckon I can be the first person to break precedent and stick within five minutes, because I know an enormous number of colleagues want to speak.
The Bill really is crucial in maintaining the integrity and the smooth operation of the UK’s internal market, and ensuring that they are underpinned by the principle of non-discrimination across the four constituent parts of our Union. I will focus on clause 45 and its constitutional ramifications, because the question that has been engrossing the Committee, and the public, is that of the notwith- standing powers and their potential breach of international law.
Even a potential breach of international law is to be treated with the utmost seriousness, but to suggest, as some have, that the provisions of the Bill place us in some sort of moral equivalence with China or Russia really is risible. Degree and proportion matter. Clause 45, as I hope it will be amended by amendment 66, equips democratically elected Members of this House to decide whether or not to protect the powers outlined in clauses 42 and 43 in the case of need. Should this House decide to, it would mitigate the risk of the UK’s internal market splintering, with all the potential consequences that would flow from that.
There is no equivalence there, and I do not believe that the Bill is symptomatic of some kind of collapse of British support for a rules-based international order. We have heard a lot of this before, but I must say that I do not remember the same level of outrage bursting forth when Germany or France violated treaty obligations on deficit and debt levels, when Canada broke international law to legalise cannabis, or in the Kadi and Barakaat case, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) mentioned, when the European Court of Justice ruled that the EU should ignore the UN charter—the highest source of international law—if it conflicted with the EU’s internal constitutional order. The ECJ then said:
“A treaty can never enjoy primacy over provisions…that form part of the constitutional foundations of the union.”
That cuts to the heart of the issue. When treaty obligations threatened to damage the constitutional coherence of the EU, it felt not only free but obligated to disregard them.
That is not to say, of course, that anyone should contemplate the EU using such powers lightly, but if, and only if, a situation arose where the movement of goods between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK was hampered and access to our internal markets was fettered, not only would it be essential but surely we, too, would be obliged to have powers in place to meet such a contingency. Like the EU, the UK has a Union to protect, and it is absolutely right that it equips itself to do so through the clauses we are currently considering. That is why I cannot support Opposition amendments that seek to de-fang clause 45.
I pay tribute to the hard work of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green), and I am reassured by Government amendment 66 that the exercise of these powers will require parliamentary approval. As I said, even a limited breach of international law is a serious matter and it is right that colleagues from across the House will have the opportunity to exercise their judgment in that respect. Of course, no one wants to see Ministers forced to come to this House seeking approval to use these powers, not least because that would suggest that the attempts of the EU and the UK to agree a trade deal had stalled or failed altogether.
Finally, it is worth restating that of course a trade deal is in the best interests of the EU and the UK, but if all efforts to secure such a deal fail and the EU then acts on its threat to damage the UK, it is essential that we have the necessary tools to protect our national coherence and the economic framework on which that depends.
Mr Alistair Carmichael
I am sure, Dame Rosie, that over the years, you and I have both sat through many debates where it was obvious eventually that everything had been said but that not yet everybody had said it. I fear that we may be into that territory today, but uniquely, I think we got to that point after the first contribution from a Back Bencher. The contribution from the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) was quite one of the most remarkable and clinical deconstructions of the Government’s argument that it was possible to imagine. She spoke with total conviction and clarity, which together were absolutely irresistible. In fact, I think it is worth recording for the benefit of Hansard that no one on the Treasury Bench did resist her. The Minister and the Secretary of State could have intervened and sought to put her right if they thought they were able to do so, but of course they did not. They sat there and squirmed, and it was a joy for many Opposition Members to watch. It took me back to another similar moment in March 2003, when the late Robin Cook delivered his resignation statement from the Government Back Benches. Again, there was the same conviction and clarity delivered at a moment of existential significance and in relation to a matter that will inevitably bring this country into conflict with the rule of law.
It is worth recalling why we have a protocol to the withdrawal agreement in the first place. It is essentially as a result of the Prime Minister’s determination to remove us from the customs union. The right hon. Member for Maidenhead understood that, and when she sought to negotiate the withdrawal agreement, she came forward with the backstop. It was that backstop that the now Prime Minister resigned over, eventually, and then proceeded to stick pins into the right hon. Lady until she too could stand it no longer. He eventually took her place, at which point he renegotiated the withdrawal agreement with the protocol attached to it. The essence of that renegotiation, of which he has boasted so many times since, was rooted in that backstop.
Tonight was always going to come, because the Government and the Prime Minister have insisted all along that they could do three things when at best they could only ever do two. They told us that they could leave the customs union, that they could avoid the placing of a hard border on the mainland of Ireland, and that they could avoid a border down the Irish sea. Once we come out of the customs union, we can only do one or other; we cannot do them both. And what we have seen tonight is these chickens coming home to roost. Goodness only knows they were warned often enough.
Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). I shall speak to clauses 40 to 45. Let us be clear from the start: the Bill protects and strengthens the United Kingdom, and it safeguards peace in Northern Ireland. There is nothing in it that undermines the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, nor is there any possibility of a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland under any circumstances. From the very outset, the United Kingdom has acted in good faith, and it did so when it signed the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol. Crucially, from the outset, the UK’s understanding of the provisions in the agreement and the protocol were abundantly clear to the EU and all those at the negotiating table. It is clear to the extent that some matters need clarification that we put faith—honest faith—in the Joint Committee reaching reasonable interpretations, being fully aware of our understanding of the issues that needed to be ironed out.
It was not just our understanding of the agreement and protocol on which we relied. The Northern Ireland protocol is clear about some key aspects. Article 1, as well as affirming that nothing in the protocol should interfere with the provisions of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, says:
“This Protocol respects the essential state functions and territorial integrity of the United Kingdom.”
Article 4 provides:
“Northern Ireland is part of the customs territory of the United Kingdom.”
Article 6 goes on to say:
“Nothing in this Protocol shall prevent the United Kingdom from ensuring unfettered market access for goods moving from Northern Ireland to other parts of the United Kingdom's internal market.”
We now find, however, that the EU is suggesting interpretations of the protocol that were never envisaged, notwithstanding the fact that the provisions are clearly set out in the protocol itself, as I have read out. There have been clear suggestions from the EU that its interpretation of the protocol would lead to the creation of a barrier within the United Kingdom, thus seriously compromising our political and economic integrity. Such action by the European Union threatens the territorial integrity of the UK. It threatens to take Northern Ireland out of the UK customs territory, and it threatens our internal market.
That is unacceptable, and no Government can sit back and allow an international organisation to do that to the very fabric of our country. The Bill is therefore a safeguard that ensures that the UK is not divided and there is no external interference in the running of our country today or in the decades to come. The Bill ensures that we leave the EU as a sovereign independent country, as the people of the UK voted to do.
It is to be hoped that an agreement can be reached with the EU. Indeed, Donald Tusk originally offered a Canada-style agreement, but to the extent that there is a material breach of good faith by the EU, we have the safety of the Bill, which not only provides for the preservation of our Union but ensures that measures are not followed through without first having obtained the consent of the House.
Finally, let us remember that all Members on these Government Benches stood as candidates at the last general election not only as Conservatives, but as Conservative and Unionist candidates. Every single Member on these Government Benches sits here as a Conservative and Unionist Member of Parliament. To now not agree the passing of this Bill would make a complete mockery of the very platform upon which we stood to get elected to Parliament.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the last few speakers, who have stuck brilliantly to the shorter time limit, but I point out that there are still many colleagues who want to get in. If we can stick to the five minutes, that would be very considerate of others who have sat here for a long time wanting to speak.
Sammy Wilson
I assume that your remarks were addressed to me, Chair, and I will do my best to respond positively. It is a great joy to follow the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), who has been a great friend of Northern Ireland and has taken a principled stand during the previous debates on the Brexit negotiations. He is highly regarded in Northern Ireland for his principled stand, his pro-Unionist views and his willingness to make sacrifices for those pro-Unionist views, too.
We will be supporting the Bill this evening and these particular clauses, but I have to say we have some reservations about the extent and the distance that the Government have gone to try to reverse the damage done by the withdrawal agreement and, in particular, the Northern Ireland protocol. I am pleased that the Government now recognise that, either inadvertently or deliberately, damage is being done to not just Northern Ireland, but the United Kingdom as a whole as a result of the withdrawal agreement, and they are trying to reverse it.
Two arguments have been advanced as to why people should oppose the Bill. The first—it has been an obsession in the House this evening, and outside the House over the past number of days—is that it goes against the Good Friday agreement. Indeed, if one looks at the amendments tabled by the nationalist Social Democratic and Labour party and the nationalist Alliance party, it is clear that their only concern is the Good Friday agreement, or their interpretation of the Good Friday agreement. All the amendments that my party have tabled address not the alleged ineffectiveness of the protocol in dealing with the Good Friday agreement, but the real problems that will be caused for Unionists, nationalists, the young, the old, businesses and workers in Northern Ireland by the protocol going through in the form that the EU wishes and by it being imposed in the way the EU wishes.
The protocol will have an effect by putting up costs—that is not my assessment, but the Government’s—reducing opportunities and variety for consumers, impacting on investment and impacting on the trade we do with our biggest market in GB. That is the effect. I will not go through all our amendments, because my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) went through them very succinctly and effectively when he was speaking. All our amendments are designed to undo that economic damage.
Let me just address the issue of the Good Friday agreement. It is significant that when pressed about how the Good Friday agreement is damaged, all we can get from those who make that claim is, “Well, it may not actually go against what is written in the Good Friday agreement, but it goes against the spirit of it”, or to use the words of the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna), “It goes against the implications”—not the wording, and she admitted that—“of the Good Friday agreement”. She could not find a clause in the Good Friday agreement that was breached by the legislation. Instead, it was the intention and the implication of it.
The truth of the matter is, of course, that the Good Friday agreement is offended by the withdrawal agreement, because the withdrawal agreement affects Northern Ireland politically. Laws will now be made in Brussels rather than in Westminster. Northern Ireland will be subject to rule by the EU; we will be part of its single market rules rather than part of the UK single market.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
It is a pleasure, as always, to follow the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). He may well have gone over his five minutes, but every word was well worth listening to. I will make sure that I stick to five minutes.
I had the pleasure and honour of chairing the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee for seven years, and our first report was to encourage the Government to explore ways in which corporation tax in Northern Ireland could be reduced to the levels in the Republic so that Northern Ireland businesses could compete on a level playing field. We were told by the European Union that it would be against its rules to do that: it had to be devolved and the Northern Ireland Assembly had to do it, and even then it would be very restricted when it tried to do it. Such taxation, which normally we would claim as our responsibility in this place, comes under the state aid rules. When we talk about bringing powers over state aid back to this Parliament, we are not necessarily talking about bailing out lame ducks. I am showing my age when I mention that phrase; I think it was first used in the early 1970s. We are not even just talking about giving boosts to certain parts of the economy. We are actually, in some cases, talking about the control of taxation. We are all familiar with the phrase, “No taxation without representation.” It is very important, therefore, that the Government stand firm on this issue.
When I was working to prepare the Committee’s report, I said that it was very important to cement the relative peace that had been achieved in Northern Ireland by having a sound economy. Obviously one of the best ways to achieve a sound economy is through trade. It is therefore very important that we do everything we can to protect trade in the United Kingdom, and, as far as I can make out, that is exactly what this Bill is trying to do. It not only connects the four countries of the United Kingdom and paves the way for them to continue to trade with each other very easily; it also makes sure that Northern Ireland can trade, as the right hon. Member for East Antrim said, with its largest trading partner, and that is Great Britain. As I said on Second Reading, north-south trade is very important, but it is not as valuable as east-west trade or west-east trade. That is something we have to be determined to protect.
I do not anticipate the European Union working from a position of bad faith. I am sure that it will continue to do everything it can to protect its businesses by coming to a free trade agreement with the United Kingdom. If we achieve that, none of what we are discussing tonight becomes important. In case it does not act in good faith, however, we need an insurance policy so that we can cement the relative peace in Northern Ireland through prosperity and continue to secure the Union of the United Kingdom.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
I intend to keep my remarks short to aid the House’s consideration of such an important topic. I am a proud child of the north-west of England and I am sure the House agrees that there are strong links between the communities of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland and those in Manchester, Liverpool, Lancashire and beyond. We travel, live and work on both sides of the short straits of the Irish sea, as my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Antony Higginbotham) said.
It will shock several hon. Members that I am actually really old—old enough to remember the shock of seeing my home town of Manchester shattered by an explosion and the devastation of the Warrington bomb. From the ’90s onwards, I have been proud to have good friends on different sides of the Northern Irish community who studied, lived and worked here and in the north-west, and who are now successful business women trading on both sides of the Irish sea. That is not to forget my next-door neighbour.
Those wonderful women and men told me stories of their childhoods. They were often a difficult and heart-rending listen, but they are important for today’s debate. They were of losing a parent to a car bomb, of having two different ways to say house to avoid the beating that would undoubtedly come if they identified their community by their pronunciation, and of the fear that they would not be able to go home if peace was not secured. To the many hon. Members who have proposed that the Bill poses a threat to the hard-won peace and that the Government would consciously do something to bring about such awful events and bring them back, I say an emphatic no.
As a young woman, I listened to teenage girls crying in a pub about what had happened to them and their families. I promised myself that if I were ever in a position to have influence, “never again” would be my mantra. To keep that promise to my teenage self, I have examined in detail the measures in the Bill and studied the text of the Good Friday agreement, specifically the section on economic, social and cultural issues, which includes:
“the British Government will pursue broad policies for sustained economic growth and stability in Northern Ireland and for promoting social inclusion, including in particular community development and the advancement of women in public life.”
The Bill in no way undermines the Good Friday agreement. On the contrary, it includes provisions to protect the agreement and help to ensure that, regardless of whether further agreement is reached in negotiations with the EU, there will be no hard border between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, and Northern Ireland businesses will continue to benefit from unrestricted access to the rest of the UK market when the transition period ends.
We need the ability to pursue, as it says in the Good Friday agreement, broad policies for sustained economic growth. My reading of the WA requires us to issue specific clarifications encoded in the Bill. The Government are taking reasonable steps to create a safety net that ensures that they are always able to deliver on their commitments to the people of Northern Ireland and uphold the gains of the peace process. To be specific, we cannot have a situation where goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland face restrictions from a third party and where we cannot help to pursue community development due to EU regulations.
I am confident that the Government’s commitment to the Good Friday agreement is beyond question, but I appeal to EU and UK leadership to redouble their efforts in negotiations to reach an agreement and render the safety net not required.
I thank the Government for amendment 66 and for giving the House an ability to have its say should that eventuality even come close to coming to pass.
I will vote with the Government on the Bill today and I will keep my word to those old friends of mine who owned the white Vectra, enjoyed a good DJ set and to whom my drink will always remain a Guinness. They are all powerful businesswomen—I will support them and I will support the Bill.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
The Bill is objectionable in a very broad sense, and my colleagues and I will not rest in detailing its egregious impositions on Scotland and our people. Like others, I look across the Chamber and I cannot see a single Scottish Tory MP in here. Perhaps they are not worried about how goods will move freely between Scotland and Northern Ireland, but I can assure the House that I and my colleagues are.
As we debate part 5 of the Bill, like many other hon. and right hon. Members I focus on clauses 42, 43 and 45, which would see comprehensive powers afforded to Ministers to disapply wide-ranging elements of the protocol and the withdrawal agreement, therefore breaching established international obligations and international law. All this would essentially be applicable unilaterally and without the burden of impasse having been established beforehand between the EU and the UK, which also dismisses the obligations to unblock any such disputes through arbitration as set out in article 68 of the withdrawal agreement—another distinct breach of faith.
This calamity is not some unconventional wheeze, such as fantasy extra funding for the NHS as a Brexit dividend, or describing this deal to the exhausted UK public as oven-ready just before an election. This is breaking international law: it is in a different league altogether. If the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) were still in his place, I would say to him that amendment 66 is a slight improvement on where we were a number of days ago, but he has warned the Government that it is not a green light—it is certainly not a red light and it is barely an amber light, because with a majority of 80 the Government will have no difficulty whatever in getting it approved by willing Tory Members.
Clause 42(3)(b) is binary, if not wholly myopic in its abstract assertion that there exists uniquely the need to maintain the integrity and smooth operation of the UK internal market, as though that works in one direction only. Without an agreement, the EU will, of course, have every legitimate claim to protect the completeness and integrity of its single market, so what is the takeaway from that? It is border checks.
The Northern Ireland protocol agreed by this Prime Minister in this Parliament in January this year is now to be rowed back on by this Bill. At one stage, we were told that a border in the Irish sea would be the solution to this, and now it turns out that that is as unlikely as it sounded. Brexiteers championed hollow assurances about technological solutions for the movement of goods, but could not identify a single instance around the world where that existed at scale. We were told this would be achieved with good will on all sides, but I suggest that good will is a resource that the Government have now thoroughly exhausted. The Government stand ready to sacrifice any country in the UK, to jettison any basic measure of international responsibility and to compromise the UK’s international reputation, such as it is, to their ideological thirst for the purest of all Brexits.
As regards the EU establishing checks on the border, that too would appear to be in contravention of the protocol, which states that the UK and the EU made a guarantee of avoiding a hard border, including any physical infrastructure or related checks and controls. But make no mistake, when a customs infrastructure goes up, it will be the United Kingdom and this Government who will be found to be delinquent and not the EU. The EU is not legislating to renege on the withdrawal agreement, but the UK is. A border between Northern Ireland and the Republic—how can it have come to this, many ask. I do not know how familiar the Minister is with border installations in Northern Ireland, but I recall very well what a menacing scar they were on the Irish countryside. I say that with all due deference to my Northern Irish colleagues, whose lived experience I cannot even hope to comprehend. The irony is not lost on those of us with a closeness to that corner of these islands that the erasing of that border and the securing of peace in the 1990s was a product of real statesmen and women who possessed and deployed political courage, wisdom and foresight. Contrast that with the reckless disregard of this Prime Minister and—let us call them—his associates, who would not be fit to carry the bags of people such as Mo Mowlam, John Hume, David Trimble, Senator George Mitchell and many more. What will the clauses in part 5 of the Bill, so enacted, mean for people in Northern Ireland—in not just the Six Counties but the neighbouring counties in the Republic, with cross-border economies? What hardship and anxiety awaits the people and businesses in counties such as Cavan, Monaghan and Donegal?
The pride of all British nationalists is the alleged strength of the Union but, as we see in the Bill, Northern Ireland is, like Scotland and Wales, important to the British state only when it can further a British ambition or generate a British receipt. The toll that takes on our peoples is merely collateral, and it was ever thus. It is hard to know which is the less competent: signing a treaty that stymies their own Brexit ambitions or trying to defend and protect their precious Union by tearing up the basis of devolution and smashing the principles of subsidiarity asunder with the Bill. The further disintegration of the UK was always going to be a consequence of Brexit and the Bill merely hastens the essential crisis that the UK now faces. Although this is in step with my own ambitions for the UK’s demise, Scottish independence is close at hand with or without the immediate impositions of the Bill, which my colleagues and I will continue to oppose.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
I shall speak against clauses 42 and 45 standing part of the Bill.
When five out of the last six leaders of the Conservative party and all five living Prime Ministers are on the same side of the argument, it is time to sit up and take note. It is not often that I agree with the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), but her remarks earlier in the debate were absolutely right. The Bill’s attempt to enable the UK to break an international agreement made in good faith is both reckless and damaging. There have been protestations that the measures in the Bill would be used only if an agreement cannot be reached, but their price is the trashing of Britain’s reputation as an honest broker. The Bill will forever allow those regimes that flout international law to counter any criticism and point a finger back at the UK. Is that really a price worth paying? Of course it is not.
How did we get here? The withdrawal agreement clearly made reference to the state aid rules in article 10 of the Northern Ireland protocol. The clue was in the title of the article—it was there in black and white: “State aid”. Did no one notice that section? Did no one read that? If not, the Government are grossly negligent. We have learned that article 10’s impact was made fully known to Ministers at the time. Even if it was not picked up in October, it was certainly referred to in those January days when Parliament debated the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill at length before passing it into law. If state aid was such a big deal, I am surprised that Government Members who were so ebullient in their support of the withdrawal agreement Bill are now so eager to say it was flawed and explain why we must pass this Bill instead. Why did they not kick up a fuss at the time? Where were they?
Many from the Conservative party will say that the measures in the Bill will be invoked only as a last resort, but even passing the Bill and allowing the Government to break international law is doing untold damage to this country’s reputation. The United Kingdom is a signatory to and has ratified the Vienna convention. One of the principles that underpin that convention is negotiating in good faith. Passing this Bill will fly in the face of the Vienna convention and give a green light to other countries wishing to break agreements. With the Government having taken this step, how will anyone ever trust anything that they say in negotiations ever again? Far from making trade deals easier, this legislation has made negotiations much harder, with the United States leading the outcry as it sees renegotiating the Northern Ireland protocol as a gross act of bad faith.
The former Conservative leader Lord Howard was right when he asked how the UK could reproach Russia, China and Iran for their actions when the UK itself was willing to break international law, as he lamented the damage to Britain’s reputation for probity and respect for the rule of law. Perhaps the Bill’s intention is to ensure that we leave the transition period without an agreement. Perhaps it is a negotiation tactic, or perhaps it is designed to be a big distraction. Whichever one of those it may be, saying that the Bill breaks the law
“in a very specific and limited way”—[Official Report, 8 September 2020; Vol. 679, c. 509.]
has diminished Britain’s global reputation.
Just as conspiracy offences carry the same maximum sentence as the original offence itself, even if the powers in the Bill were not used, the fact that the intention was there to do so is proof enough of bad faith. If the Bill passes, even if the power to disapply is not used, irrevocable damage has been done to Britain’s international reputation. Once that reputation is lost it will be very hard to get back.
Sir Edward Leigh
I wish to speak to my amendment 42. I am optimistic that we can reach a deal for the benefit of both the UK and the EU. My amendment outlines a way whereby in the event that the implementation period ends without a UK agreement we can still provide reassurance on the integrity of our internal market. The statement that EU negotiators made on 10 September, threatening, on the record, that the EU could control the movement of food from Great Britain to Northern Ireland was a regrettable escalation. The reality is that we do not need to accept its interpretation of the protocol. The alternative in the face of unreasonable demands is to state clearly our interpretation of what we agreed to when we signed the protocol.
As I highlighted in the debates last year—I also had numerous meetings with the then Prime Minister and the then Attorney General, and the ideas I promoted were incorporated in the previous Prime Minister’s last suggestion—there is an instrument of diplomacy that can be applied to treaties of this kind and it is called an “interpretative declaration”. Any party to a treaty can use this legal instrument on its own initiative. To emphasise that, we refer to it as a unilateral interpretative declaration. I am sorry to get into detail, but this is terribly important. The law is important and we must uphold the law, which is why I have concerns about the current direction the Government are taking. If the Germans have given the world great music and the French have given it great pictures, we have given the world freedom under the law, under parliamentary democracy, so we must remain within the law.
The point is that there may be a way for the Government to achieve their objective without breaking international law. If the EU were to act on its threat, it would violate our sovereignty—one of the most basic principles of international law. This is what lawyers call an act of bad faith in negotiations. It can also be called a manifestly absurd interpretation of the protocol, and under international law no one is bound by an absurd interpretation of a treaty that is entered into in good faith. If we use a unilateral interpretative declaration to spell out our objections, the EU must respond by either explicitly rejecting or implicitly accepting our interpretation. If it rejects, it must formulate and justify an alternative interpretation. If the EU goes along with a unilateral interpretative declaration made by the UK, it becomes a legally binding joint interpretation. If the EU opposes our interpretation, we have at least strengthened our negotiating position, pushed the EU negotiators on to the back foot and gained a basis for appealing to EU national Governments for new instructions to be given to EU negotiators.
Importantly, an interpretative declaration would hand the EU a way out of the escalation, which is why I am putting this forward as a constructive idea to get us out of the impasse we are in. So much of diplomacy is about saving face, and this would help the EU to do so, while securing an agreement. We would not be reopening or unpicking the protocol; we would just be making a small explanatory statement of our interpretation of what we had signed up to in good faith. Stage three of Brexit starts in January, when we will have established a series of new relationships between the UK, the Republic of Ireland and the EU. There have been deep and bitter rifts over this, first about the backstop and then about the new protocol, but two major improvements have taken place. First, we no longer have the backstop. Secondly, the new arrangement will last only as long as it has the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. Critics say, “Oh, but Northern Ireland is part of the UK. We will still be linked to the EU.” That is a valid point, but what clear alternatives are they offering?
We have a fundamental logical difficulty here. We have three important goals, and it is difficult to see how they can all be reached compatibly but in full: first, we want to support the Belfast agreement; secondly, we want to leave the customs union; and thirdly, we want a cohesive, sovereign, independent United Kingdom. We cannot reach each of those three goals in full simultaneously without a little bit of give and take, and that is all I am suggesting. We need to invoke the great British spirit of compromise. It may be called muddling through, but it is what we do best.
It is the same in the family of communities that is the United Kingdom and the family of nations in the world. We need to make sacrifices in order to work together. With a little bit of malleability, making some tweaks to the integrity of our internal market, we can preserve the peace in Northern Ireland that has taken so long to achieve. Equally, if we are making some adjustments and sacrifices, the European Union needs to sacrifice its rigid attitudes. That is the compromise I propose, and I hope it is helpful to the debate.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
This is the first opportunity I have had to speak on the Bill, which I have profound concerns about, so I want to use the early part of my remarks to lay out my clear objections to the Bill. After that, I will seek to address part 5 of the Bill, which is the focus of our line-by-line scrutiny tonight.
Like many colleagues from Scotland, I have grave concerns that the Bill is not only a slap in the face to the rule of international law but undermines the very foundations of the devolution settlements, which are so precious to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That should not surprise the people of Scotland, who witnessed the Tories campaign vehemently against devolution in the 1997 referendum. The truth is that the Conservatives and this Prime Minister in particular have never respected the devolution arrangements. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) reminded the House last week, it was a former Daily Telegraph writer who wrote a tirade against devolution, saying:
“Devolution is causing all the strains that its opponents predicted, and in allowing the Scots to make their own laws, while free-riding on English taxpayers, it is simply unjust.”
That former Daily Telegraph writer was, of course, the current First Lord of the Treasury, the Prime Minister.
From the outset, I absolutely reject the Bill and will vote against it at every opportunity until it is foisted on to the statute books by a Tory Government that people in my country never voted for. But let us be crystal clear about the draft legislation before us and the consequences of it receiving Royal Assent. For a start, the Bill would undoubtedly lead to a race to the bottom on food and environmental standards. Indeed, it creates more, not less, uncertainty for businesses and makes the case that the only way to truly defend the Scottish Parliament is with the normal powers of independence.
I am long enough in the tooth to know that Committee of the whole House means that my remarks have to be focused on the specific clauses at hand, so I will not test your patience much longer, Dame Rosie, and will seek to focus on part 5 of the Bill. Indeed, I will make specific and limited references to clauses 40 to 45, but in doing so, I wish to indicate my support for amendments 27, 31 to 40, 44, 80, 88 and 89, in the name of my hon. Friends on the SNP Benches, and I will also support new clauses 5 and 6 if they are put to a Division.
I want to first deal with the issue of breaching international law, which has been the source of much debate this evening and in recent weeks. Since this is the first time that I have participated in proceedings on the Bill, I have had the opportunity to watch all of this play out, particularly on Second Reading last week, and I am still not quite sure what to make of it, if I am truly honest.
Part of me still finds it jaw-dropping and astonishing that the Conservative party—once the party of law and order—is now openly flouting international law. But then I realise that we have been here before, because this is a Government and a Prime Minister who do not respect or uphold the law. It is a timely reminder of the events this time last year, when my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) forced the Government into the Supreme Court, which found their actions to prorogue Parliament “unlawful”, so should we be surprised at this Government putting two fingers up to the judiciary? Ministers need to think again, not just because it is morally wrong to break the law, but because it is also a clear breach of the ministerial code. David Anderson QC was bang on the money when he said:
“The Ministerial Code still mandates compliance with international law, despite a change to its wording, as the Court of Appeal confirmed in 2018”.
However, the controversy surrounding the clauses before us tonight is not just about upholding the rule of law, which is surely the most basic thing we would expect from a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Pushing ahead with this madness will have an impact for post-Brexit Britain on the world stage. What does it say about a post-Brexit global Britain that its first act as an independent state is to tear up the rules-based order? I would argue that it sends a clear signal that Britain under Boris is giving two fingers up to not just international law but peace on the island of Ireland, and that is what worries me most about all this. Tory Ministers and Back Benchers appear, once again, to be playing fast and loose with Northern Ireland, with little understanding of the consequences for the fragile communities over there, or indeed for the knock-on effect on trade.
We know that pressing ahead with this reckless act is a sure-fire way of torpedoing any chance of a trade deal with the United States. How do we know that? Because the Americans have said so already. Take Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of Congress, who said:
“The U.K. must respect the Northern Ireland Protocol as signed with the EU to ensure the free flow of goods across the border. If the U.K. violates that international treaty and Brexit undermines the Good Friday accord, there will be absolutely no chance of a U.S.-U.K. trade agreement passing the Congress.”
Most of us know that playing fast and loose with the Northern Ireland protocol, as the Bill proposes, will not end well, but imagine my surprise when I saw some tweets from the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) suggesting:
“Trade deals are nice to have but not essential. We didn’t have a trade deal with the USA when in the EU. Getting back full control of our laws, our money and our borders is essential.”
I am a bit confused, because one caucus of the Tory party, headed up by the International Trade Secretary, says that Brexit is all about new opportunities for trade, and Brextremists such as the right hon. Gentleman say that trade deals are nice but not essential—all the while the Government are playing fast and loose with peace on the island of Ireland.
The fact is that the Bill, and specifically the three clauses before us, are a clear advert for what Brexit Britain looks like: playing peace with Northern Ireland; riding roughshod over devolution; a race to the bottom on food and environmental standards; and two fingers up to upholding the rule of law. People in Scotland can see that it is an advert for post-Brexit Britain, and do not be surprised if they trade it in for independence and take back control the next time Scotland has the opportunity.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Gentleman. It is a sign of how fast moving these debates are that when I put into speak this evening I intended to support amendment 4 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), but before I got the chance to speak he had already indicated his intention of withdrawing it. He is doing so for the best of reasons. It was an excellent amendment, and I am glad that the Government have said that they agree with the thrust of it, so we can discuss a different set of points.
I know that many of my friends and colleagues abstained or voted against the Bill on Second Reading because of their doubts about part 5. I voted in favour because I think that the other 50 clauses are excellent and essential. The UK internal market is key to the future prosperity of people in all four countries of the United Kingdom, and the principles of market recognition and non-discrimination are at the heart of the future prosperity of our citizens in all parts of the UK.
However, I shared the doubts that many had about clauses 42, 43 and 45—the essential parts of part 5 of the Bill—and I was quite shocked to hear a Secretary of State say that the UK Government were planning to break the law, even in a specific and limited way. I had not ever expected to hear any Secretary of State say that, particularly not a Conservative one, so I am genuinely delighted that the Government have taken over my hon. Friend’s amendment. I think that is a wise and pragmatic thing for the Government to have done, and I am glad to have played my part in the talks that led to it.
It is important that the House recognise that this is more than just kicking the can down the road, if I can revive one of the great clichés of 2018 political debate. The Government amendment needs to be put in context with the public statement that the Government have made on gov.uk and, indeed, some of the words that the Minister uttered in opening this debate, when he made it clear that Parliament will be asked to support the use of the provisions in the clauses, and any similar subsequent provisions, only in the case of the EU being engaged in a material breach of its duties of good faith and, in the Government’s view, thereby undermining the fundamental purpose of the Northern Ireland protocol, and giving examples of what that would involve.
It seems to me that, despite the various attacks on the Bill that we have heard, the case is now straightforward. If the Government can convince the House that those on the other side in the negotiations have broken the rules, they can proceed. At that point, the Government have said, the dispute resolution procedures in the withdrawal agreement will come into force, which I think is another sign of legal action. But the key point is that the Government will have to make the case to this House that the EU has broken the agreement, not the UK. I am absolutely sure that that proposition will provoke a lively debate in this House, and indeed across the channel, but in the light of that debate we will then decide and we will make the law. If the Government cannot make the case that they are behaving properly, proportionately and legally, they will not convince the House. It seems to me that that is how law making should happen in this parliamentary democracy.
This is where I part company with my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who made a passionate and powerful speech. She said that there was no difference between the Executive acting and Parliament acting, but I do not think that is true. I think that there is much greater force in action taken knowingly by the House of Commons, particularly in this context, when it is considering whether the Government are acting lawfully. Putting that power in the hands of the House of Commons is democratically proper and therefore legally proper.
The Northern Ireland clauses of the Bill have not had an easy passage, for good and serious reasons, but we are now in a much better place with them than we were a week ago, and I am now happy to support the Government on this and on the Bill more generally.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Dame Rosie. During the passage of the Bill, I have spoken extensively on the attacks on devolution, on the specific consequences for Northern Ireland and the Good Friday agreement, and indeed on the failure of the Prime Minister to deliver on his oven-ready Brexit deal.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) for his speech, but I also wish to pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), the former Prime Minister, for her comments. I have disagreed with her courteously on many issues over the years, but she is a person of principle, public service and integrity. I am afraid that I cannot say the same about some of the others, including our current Prime Minister, our rubber stamp of an Attorney General or our now-compliant Lord Chancellor, who once stood up for the rule of law during his time in practice in south Wales, but who now seems willing, in his own words, to “fudge it”. Indeed, there are the contradictions of our Foreign Secretary, who one minute is rightly arguing for international law and human rights, such as the Magnitsky sanctions and everything that goes with them, but the next minute is undermining them.
I am afraid that the damage that the Government’s statements have done to our reputation is incalculable. The right hon. Member for Maidenhead, who is no longer in her place, said
“frankly, my view is that to the outside world, it makes no difference whether a decision to break international law is taken by a Minister or by this Parliament; it is still a decision to break international law. This can only weaken the UK in the eyes of the world… It will lead to untold damage to the United Kingdom’s reputation.”
I agree with every word.
We have heard many powerful speeches, from Members across the House, expressing deep concern about where the Bill is taking us. I urge those who have stood up with principle and questioned the Government and put forward amendments to think again. The Prime Minister has repeatedly broken his word: he has broken it to the Taoiseach; he has broken it to our negotiating partners in the European Union; and he has broken it to Members on his own side repeatedly. Do not trust him.
A number of arguments have been made that suggest there are some sort of special exemptions in the Vienna convention and various international treaties. That is simply not the case. The House of Commons Library—neutral, respected and authoritative—has been very clear, saying that this is a far-reaching power to effectively allow the violation of
“any international obligation that may be engaged in the creation of regulations under clauses 42 and 43.”
It notes that this is not limited specifically to a violation of the Northern Ireland protocol but to
“all international obligations that may have legal implications in this context.”
It also makes it clear that, under the Vienna convention,
‘“A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.’ This means that this Bill cannot change the legally binding nature, in international law, of the UK’s international obligations.”
It also makes it crystal clear that
“parliamentary sovereignty does not change the binding nature of the UK’s international obligations.”
It is there in black and white.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I am grateful to have caught your eye, Dame Rosie, so that I can respond to some of the comments that the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) was just making. I respect that he feels passionately about these matters, but to equate these clauses with genocide or the annexation of territory against the will of a sovereign state is absolutely ridiculous. It completely misunderstands the degree of doubt that exists about what international law means when interpreting international agreements.
Damian Green
My hon. Friend is ascribing the things he most disagrees with to me—[Interruption.] No, he did say “my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford”. I am sure that the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) would wish to take ownership of his own ideas.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I apologise to my right hon. Friend. His name was in my mind because it was on the monitor before the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth spoke.
It is important to see these clauses in the wider context. My heart sank when I picked up the first draft of the agreement, because this was not the departure from the European Union that I had expected to see expressed in the text of the agreement; it was the same oppressive, impenetrable text with endless references to the treaties as they exist. The withdrawal agreement was clearly a concerted attempt by the European Union to continue its influence, even through the direct applicability and direct effect of European Union law on the United Kingdom.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
No, I am not going to give way. I am going to be very brief.
The important perspective is to ask ourselves how this debate is going to be regarded in 10, 20 or 30 years’ time. These controversies will be seen as the growing pains of the re-establishment of our national sovereign independence as a national democracy. I dare say that none of us has studied the debates on the Great Reform Act of 1832, but I bet they went through exactly the same kind of painful introspection that we have seen in the Chamber this evening. Today we look upon the 1832 Reform Act as a great stride towards the democratisation of our constitution, and history will look back at these debates in the same way and see this moment in our history as the time that we decided to take back control of our own constitutional arrangements and our own national democracy.
I would go further than that. There is no doubt that this Bill will get through this House intact, but some people are suggesting that there will be more of a problem in the other place. There will be those who continue to resist the consequences of leaving the European Union and the consequences of having signed a highly unsatisfactory agreement that attempts to sustain the influence of the European Union far beyond any legitimate role it has in making the laws of our country. That is what we are talking about, in relieving ourselves of these clauses. However, I can assure the House that, in the long run, nothing is going to stand in the way of the British people re-establishing and reclaiming our independence, and if the other place chooses to stand in our way in that respect, I suspect that in the longer term this House, as the democratic House, will prevail.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
There is so much wrong with this Bill that it is difficult to know where to start, but in the time I have available, I will concentrate my remarks on clauses 40 to 45. Those are the clauses that allow this Government to break international law and renege on the legally binding agreement that they themselves negotiated and signed up to less than a year ago—a fact that, try as they might, they can never escape from. I will also speak to amendment 41, which deals with preserving the integrity of the Good Friday agreement, on the basis of which peace has been secured in the north of Ireland for more than two decades and which seeks to defend international law from a Government who believe that somehow, uniquely and exceptionally, it does not apply to them.
On 16 June, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster stood at the Dispatch Box and said that the Government were “faithfully implementing” the withdrawal agreement, including the Northern Ireland protocol. Just 83 days later, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland stood at the same Dispatch Box and said that, yes, the Bill did break international law. This unprecedented political handbrake turn left everyone from a former Prime Minister to the United States Congress scarcely able to comprehend what they were hearing—namely, that the United Kingdom was prepared to go rogue if it did not get its own way, and to ditch its own Northern Ireland protocol. It is a remarkable, not to say ludicrous, position for a Government to find themselves in and one that suggests that this is a Government who have scant regard for the law and a particularly cavalier attitude to the Northern Ireland peace process, displaying as they do very little knowledge, understanding or care as to the consequences of their actions.
I know that we live in strange times, but who would ever have thought that we would be debating whether a UK Conservative Government could knowingly break international law and that this House, led by the self-styled champions of law and order on the Conservative Benches, would be about to say that, yes, it could? Let them be in no doubt that, in doing so, they are signalling to the international community that the United Kingdom is a bad faith actor, an untrustworthy partner whose adherence to international law is based solely on expediency. They might want to ask themselves why—why would any Government find the UK an attractive partner with which to enter a legally binding trade deal in the future?
This is a United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, but it has already attracted international attention, and none of it has been good. Even the USA, on which much of the bright post-Brexit future has been predicated, has said that anything that undermines the Good Friday agreement will have dire consequences for the UK, and that there will be no trade deal forthcoming. Did any Conservative Member think that that would not be the case? Is anyone in this House unaware of the political investment that the United States has in brokering peace in Northern Ireland? Did anyone think that, having worked so hard to secure a peace deal, the United States would just watch it crumble into dust when it proved to be an inconvenience to the UK Government? I tell you what, Madam Deputy Speaker, if they did think that then, they certainly do not think it now, because the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, declared that this UK Government must respect the Northern Ireland protocol and that, if they violate it, there will be no chance of a US-UK trade deal. That position was backed up by presidential favourite Joe Biden, who said that any deal between the UK and the United States is contingent upon respect for the Good Friday agreement. The world is telling the UK: do not breach international law, do not become that rogue state, because there will be consequences if you do.
This Bill confirms what many of us have suspected for a long time: there is no long-term or strategic thinking at the heart of this Government. Everything they do is based on expediency and is designed simply to get them off whatever immediate and inconvenient hoop they happen to be caught on. That such behaviour inevitably leads to far bigger and more complex problems further down the line seems to matter little. They are like an errant child trying to avoid facing up to their responsibilities and are prepared to say or do anything to kick that further down the road and avoid the reckoning. They have run out of road and been reduced to using the Good Friday agreement as a bargaining chip, and are on the brink of becoming an international law breaker. This Bill in its current form will see the United Kingdom cross the Rubicon. It has embarked on a course from which it cannot come back. The mask has slipped and any remaining shred of moral authority that the United Kingdom may have thought it had will have slipped with it. The consequence of this Government’s action is coming to a head, and it is a disaster entirely of their own making.
Jeremy Wright
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara). My reservations about clauses 42, 43 and 45 of the Bill were expressed, I hope clearly, on Second Reading, so I do not need to repeat them. Those of us who have reservations and understandable concerns about the effect on the rule of law of what the Government are proposing need, I think, to answer one question, which is whether there are any conceivable circumstances in which international law could properly be broken by this country. I cannot come to the conclusion that there are no conceivable circumstances in which that might be the right course of action. If there were to be a fundamental threat to the social or economic fabric of this country and breaking the international law was the lesser evil, I can accept that that might be the right thing for this country to do it, but if we were to contemplate such a course of action three things would need to be true.
The first thing would be that there was specific authority to break international law, not general latitude. It seems to me that we have made progress on that. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) and others on negotiating with the Government in the way that they have. I am delighted to see amendment 66 brought forward in the Government’s name as a consequence; and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) said a moment or so ago, it is perfectly right that the House of Commons should have the opportunity to give its specific view on the specific circumstances that may obtain at that point.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I thoroughly enjoyed the very thoughtful and well analysed speech from the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright). I hope his hon. Friends will listen very carefully to what he says, which is incredibly important.
There are things I did not expect to be doing today. The first is to be quoting the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who spoke of the untold damage to the UK’s reputation of implementing these clauses which will break international law as soon as they hit the statute book. Something else I did not expect to be doing today, or ever, is quoting Margaret Thatcher. In 1975—before your time, Dame Eleanor—she said:
“Britain does not renounce Treaties. Indeed, to do so would damage our own integrity as well as international relations.”
In 1982, Mrs Thatcher said of Britain’s role:
“It is in upholding international law and teaching the nations of the world how to live”.
That last bit did not always go down so well, but, Dame Eleanor, you take the point. Mrs Thatcher believed, as the right hon. Member for Maidenhead believes, in the rule of law and in the importance of upholding international law at all cost.
That is without citing Lord Howard, Lord Hague or Lord Lamont, and I mention them along with the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox), as former Members of this House, in three cases, who are held in high regard, or used to be held in high regard, by members of Conservative party. Then we move on to the Confederation of British Industry: Carolyn Fairbairn spoke of the damage to our reputation and integrity. The Federation of Small Businesses in Northern Ireland made a plea to the Government for sensible implementation of the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol, but its pleas have fallen, so far, on deaf ears.
As we heard earlier, the damage was done when the Northern Ireland Secretary told the House, as he did last week or the week before now—time passes so fast—that the Government intended to break international law, albeit in a “specific and limited way”. The Vienna convention is clear: it is not possible to use domestic law as an excuse for breaking international law. Article 5 of the withdrawal agreement makes it clear that it is not possible to do so, and Conservative Members all signed up to it at a general election and in here when they voted for it. They used to say that they revered those elders of their party—many of them would still say they do with Margaret Thatcher, of course—so how did it come to this?
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend is making some incredibly powerful points. He is undoubtedly aware that today the world is celebrating the 75th anniversary of the United Nations. Does he find it curious that the UK Government have signed up to a statement that says:
“We will abide by international law… We will abide by the international agreements we have entered into and the commitments we have made”?
Is there not some stark hypocrisy going on there?
Bill Esterson
Hypocrisy, and nobody will believe it. No one will believe it because of their own words and, increasingly, their own actions. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that example.
What is this for—customs clearances, and because of a border in the Irish sea that the Government voted for? Have they raised it with the Joint Committee, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) asked for the umpteenth time earlier? We would love to know in the wind-up. What of the dispute resolution system and the binding arbitration they have agreed to? Why is it no longer enough? Is this really about state aid, and the Damascene conversion of a Conservative party that last year only spent 0.38% of GDP on subsidies, while in Germany the figure was 1.38% and in Portugal as much as 1.69%? Tell us what this wonderful new world of support for our industries that the Government are proposing is, so we can scrutinise it.
The Government are not very good at scrutiny, are they? We found that out on the Trade Bill, and we continue to do so. They deny any opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny, and it is the same here with these customs clearances and state aid. When it comes to state aid, we are now being told, although we cannot see the detail, that the Japanese deal will have a different state aid regime from the one they are proposing. Is it the one proposed by the Business Secretary or the one that the International Trade Secretary would prefer, with renegotiation of World Trade Organisation state aid rules? Tell us, so that we can scrutinise and make informed decisions before we vote on the provisions in this Bill.
I mention trade deals, and we know from numerous Members tonight and previously what the Speaker of the House of Representatives has said and what the former Vice-President and, I hope, future President, has said about the prospect for those trade deals, given this break of the Northern Ireland agreement and threat to the peace process. What is causing so much disquiet about what Conservative Members signed and voted for last year? Why are they ignoring the senior people in their party and Margaret Thatcher? Why the Damascene conversion to state aid? Broken promises, breaking the peace process and breaking the rule of law and international law—and they know it.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
I am pleased to speak in support of the Bill, specifically part 5, subject to Government amendment 66. Part 5 proved controversial, even before we began proceedings this afternoon. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Minister arrived in the Chamber fully expecting that he would have to defend the Government against accusations of being in breach of their obligations under the withdrawal agreement, and he has not been disappointed.
What has been frequently overlooked in today’s debate is the fact that obligations under the withdrawal agreement move in two directions. There are obligations on both sides. Specifically, the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration impose obligations on both the European Union and the United Kingdom to use their best endeavours in good faith to negotiate expeditiously the free trade agreement that will constitute their future relationship.
The political declaration provides that that relationship must ensure the sovereignty of the United Kingdom and the protection of its internal market. The sad fact is that negotiations have not proceeded expeditiously, and it is more than arguable that the European Union has not used its best endeavours nor acted in good faith. The EU, in fact, has refused to talk about anything other than its so-called red lines of fisheries, the level playing field and state aid. Time is rapidly passing, yet the EU refuses to talk about anything else. If, as a consequence of its intransigence and refusal to discuss things other than its red lines, we arrive at the point where the negotiations fail and there is no free trade agreement, there will be potentially severe, adverse consequences for the integrity of the United Kingdom’s internal market. Hardest hit will be Northern Ireland. To take one example, although the protocol says in terms that Northern Ireland is part of the customs territory of the United Kingdom, the protocol says that it is part of the EU’s customs territory, and potentially the consequences are that goods passing from Northern Ireland to Great Britain will be subject to what the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) described as bureaucratic and administrative borders.
That is despite the fact that article 6 of the protocol provides that nothing should prevent the United Kingdom from ensuring unfettered market access for goods moving from Northern Ireland to other parts of the UK’s internal market. Part 5 of the Bill therefore sets up a safeguard against such consequences, should there be no satisfactory conclusion to the negotiations on the future relationship.
The impact on the Belfast/Good Friday agreement is deeply worrying. The right for the people of Great Britain and Ireland to trade freely was enshrined in article 6 of the Acts of Union 1800. Those provisions still apply to Northern Ireland—they are rights set up under a constitutional statute. If the right of the people of Northern Ireland to trade freely with the rest of the UK were to be changed without their consent, it would amount to a major breach of the core principle of the Belfast agreement.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship tonight, Dame Eleanor.
Let me start by being crystal clear that Opposition Members firmly believe in the need for a strong internal market so that businesses can trade freely across the UK’s four nations. That trade is vital for our economy and our shared prosperity, but, as we have heard in recent days as the House debates this Bill in Committee, it must be an internal market based on a genuinely four-nation approach; it must not be a top-down framework imposed by Tory Ministers.
By proposing mutual recognition without legally underpinning minimum standards, Ministers are ensuring that the lowest standard on food, the environment, air quality and animal welfare that is chosen by one legislative House must automatically become the minimum standard across all four nations. As Member of Parliament for Newport West, I have received many lengthy and passionate representations from residents across my constituency. It is clear that they want the highest possible standards, protected by our progressive Welsh Labour Government, a demand that stands in stark contrast to the shameless race to the bottom proposed by those on the Treasury Bench.
There are a number of important amendments to this Bill, and I pay tribute to those tabled by my Front Bench and others across the House. The Minister needs to be clear in winding up that amending this Bill and stopping the shameless power grab will be a key focus of this Government.
As today’s debate focuses largely on Northern Ireland, I urge the Minister to be mindful of the fragile peace holding that part of the country together. Last week, the hon. Members for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) and for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) spoke movingly about what peace has meant for Northern Ireland. Their words must be heard loud and clear by Ministers.
When thinking about the Northern Ireland protocol I was reminded of the wonderful work of our friend Lady Hermon, the former Member for North Down. In September 2019 she said in this Chamber:
“I think the Prime Minister owes the people of Northern Ireland some explanation of why he and his Government have treated the Good Friday agreement…in such a careless and cavalier manner.”—[Official Report, 3 September 2019; Vol. 664, c. 46.]
She was right then, and, sadly, she is still right today.
I do not always agree with the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), but I want to thank her for her brave speech today, as she focused on the issues the Bill throws up and how it will affect our standing in the rest of the world.
The current Prime Minister has called himself the Minister for the Union; I have to say that these days he looks like the Minister for disarray, and frequently appears to be missing in action. A Government who were truly committed to the Union of the United Kingdom would not propose this divisive legislation. They would respect the devolved Administrations and the people who live, learn and work in our devolved nations, and propose legislation with the informed consent of the devolved Parliaments and Assemblies.
The Tory shadow Counsel General in Wales said this Bill risks seriously damaging the Union and resigned from the Front Bench in the Senedd, and he was right to do so. If the Prime Minister will not take the same dignified and objective stand as David Melding MS and resign, he must immediately stop trashing our international reputation, and must use however long he has left in office to start providing the good government my constituents deserve.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
It is always a joy to come in on the fag end of a debate, when so many people have said everything that needs to be said and we have had a surfeit of lawyers on what is a very legalistic Bill—I am not one, thank goodness.
There is much good in this Bill. It is about the continuity of trade and the integrity of the United Kingdom, the principle of mutual recognition and the principle of non-discrimination of goods within the UK, and there is much practical stuff that, in the absence of an early agreement with the EU, we need to do. However, I have serious reservations about the inclusion of clauses 41 to 45 because of the implications well beyond this Bill, or indeed, well beyond our withdrawal process from the EU. They raise serious question marks about the intent and good name of the United Kingdom in being party to other international agreements.
When a Government Minister at the Dispatch Box states that the UK will be able to break the law, albeit in a “specific and limited way”, parliamentarians should prick up their ears and ask why and how, and demand proper justification from the Government and the Ministers to whom this part of the Bill gives considerable and ongoing powers. When the Government published this Bill in a hurry, that justification, I feel, was just not forthcoming from the Government, and on Second Reading, I therefore could not support the Bill. I would like to support the Government. I would like to support the Bill, but I need more assurances.
Amendment 4, which was put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) and which forced the hand of the Government with Government amendment 66, certainly helps, although it just gives an additional check without removing the powers reserved to the Government fundamentally. I say this as a concerned Brexiteer, but this is not a question of leave or remain. It has no impact on the UK leaving the EU fully after the end of the transition period on 31 December, but it does have an impact, potentially, on how we carry on our business in the world beyond the EU after 31 December.
I think the EU has behaved disgracefully throughout the negotiation period. It has exploited shamelessly the unique position of Northern Ireland as our land border with the EU but subordinate to the very important status conferred on it by the Good Friday agreement. It has used all sorts of underhand tactics to promote its pet causes, to keep the UK under the control of EU laws and regulations, be that British fisheries or state aid considerations and preventing us from being able to compete fairly, which is all we ask. “Unless you give us what we want, we will impose checks and tariffs between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and there is nothing you can do to stop it”—runs the subtext of the negotiations.
It has now become clear that the EU is trying to reinterpret the terms of the withdrawal agreement to impose control over internal markets within the UK that no other country would tolerate and none has been required to agree to as part of any other EU trade deal. Of course, as we heard from many hon. Members, the EU is no stranger to breaking international agreements when that suits it, especially as regards the WTO. Has the EU really been negotiating an agreement in good faith, especially when a precedent has already been set of what was possible with a Canada-type deal?
Despite all this, it does not, and should not, mean that we, the United Kingdom, have to follow suit and act badly as well. The United Kingdom has a reputation for upholding the rule of law. The Conservative party has always had as one of its most cherished doctrines the importance of upholding the rule of law, so I share, for once, the concern of many lawyers who are worried that these clauses represent a significant risk of violation of the UK’s international law obligations, including the principle of good faith and sincere co-operation; that the Northern Ireland protocol and associated case law would have a subordinate role dependent on ministerial interpretation; and that this would have potentially a serious impact on the reputation of the UK as a centre for international legal practice and dispute resolution. This would not go down well, given the professed ambition of UK, quite rightly, to be a leader in global trade and a trailblazer for free trade in particular. As the former Attorney General put it, assenting to these proposals
“would amount to nothing more or less than the unilateral abrogation of the treaty obligations to which we pledged our word less than 12 months ago, and which this parliament ratified in February.”
If we do not like what we signed, there is an arbitration process, so finally, I am genuinely bemused about why these clauses have been brought forward now and what they were intended to achieve. There is nothing in the Bill or in the Government amendments about them only being used in extremis, after all those other routes have been exhausted, and that includes the formal arbitration process. If we are going to pre-empt that arbitration process by saying that we will not go to arbitration, why include an arbitration process, and if we do believe in an arbitration process but we will not follow the result if it goes against us, that arbitration process is worthless and pointless.
Why now? Why not when negotiations have not come to a conclusion, if that is the case, despite the severe strain that this move has put on them? Why not nearer 31 December, if it has become clear that a deal has not been reached and the EU is determined to enact our worst-feared scenario? If this is a bargaining tactic, it does not seem to have gone down very well. It has not made negotiations any easier. It has not made a US trade deal any easier. It has not made any other trade deals any easier.
If this really is a bargaining tactic, it is necessary to be able to deliver on it, and there are doubts about whether the Bill can get through the other place. I am afraid that I just do not understand it. I hope that before we vote, Ministers will make everything magically clearer. I may give the Government the benefit of the doubt, but if it comes back for the vote of the Commons—not the Lords, notably—and those questions remain unanswered, I will not be able to support a Bill that retains these clauses unqualified. I hope that the Minister will prove me wrong.
Jim Shannon
It is a pleasure to speak on this issue. This is an intricate matter that is not helped by those with little or poor understanding of the Belfast agreement, or indeed of the truth of the troubles and our painful journey, using it as a political soundbite. Seeing Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the US House of Representatives, being led by a reporter to outline the consequences of this Bill for US-UK trade relations would have been laughable had it not highlighted the severe misunderstanding that many people are under.
This Bill is not designed to tear up the Belfast agreement; in fact, it is there to recognise that until the will of the people is to be Irish, we are to be considered British, and we are to remain so until a border poll is carried out. That border poll has not been carried out yet. The Belfast agreement underlines the notion of consent; for us to have an absolutely separate rule for state aid and other trade and transport damages the very principle of consent in the Belfast agreement. That is the reason that the Democratic Unionist party have tabled amendments on state aid—yet, for some, the message is not getting through just yet. Clauses 45 to 50 are very clear in their purpose.
The Ulster Farmers Union has also been very clear in relation to the levels of state aid in clause 43. The Republic of Ireland has a responsibility to its constituents to secure the best deals and the best advantages, but let us be clear: it is not our friend. It is at best a friendly rival, and at worst simply a rival with a voice to implement and effect change in Europe, against our voiceless efforts post Brexit. History has shown that when it comes to doing the right thing by refusing to allow criminals to take harbour over the border, it has no desire to help us as a nation. When I have listened to debates in the Dáil, I have never once come to the conclusion that it has our best interests at heart.
That is why my colleagues and I tabled our amendments to ensure that the fears of the Ulster Farmers Union and others are not realised. How, for example, do we allow fair trade for any of our dairy products when the mainland has state aid in place in the form of grants for dairy farmers? The answer is that we simply cannot. That is why we need to change state aid through these clauses tonight. Trade is at the core of our amendments.
Clause 41, which supports the delivery of the UK Government’s commitment to unfettered access for Northern Ireland goods moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain, does so by precluding new checks, controls or administrative processes on qualifying goods as they move from Northern Ireland to GB. It similarly precludes the use of existing checks, controls or processes being used for the first time, or for a new purpose or to a new extent. That does not show the destruction of the Belfast agreement, but it is necessary for the stability of food supply and state aid. Without it, we will certainly see the destruction of our country.
As the EU sees it, the UK has committed to comply with applicable notification and standstill obligations. That means that the ceiling put on state aid by the EU still applies in Northern Ireland in relation to trade. We will be constrained under the Northern Ireland protocol to a certain level of support for agriculture, only a certain proportion of which can be spent, for instance, on coupled payments. With that in mind, I believe that Northern Ireland could be constrained by these very rules. That is why tonight we wish to support our amendments and the clauses that the Government have put forward. We urge Members to do the same.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), who I very much agreed with.
Today we are talking about the answer that Margaret Thatcher gave to Dean Acheson’s famous question, “What is Britain’s role in the world?” She was right: our national mission is upholding the rule of law. That lesson served her and our nation exceptionally well. It gave moral legitimacy to the courageous defence of British nationals in the Falkland Islands and strength to the treaty that she signed two years later with China to protect British nationals in Hong Kong. Trust in the treaties allowed Margaret Thatcher to start down the road of peace in our own nation and conclude the Anglo-Irish agreement with the then Taoiseach, Garret FitzGerald.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
I was not expecting to participate in this debate, but I never thought I would hear a Minister in this Chamber say that we might be breaching international law. I am grateful to Lords Howard and Lamont for quashing the myth that somehow those who speak against part 5 of the Bill are part of a tactic to support the EU or promote a remain cause. We have left the EU already. I voted for it, it was part of our manifesto and I supported that.
This debate is being watched far and wide, and I spent last week speaking to counterparts from my Defence Committee in the United States and to Washington DC, explaining to Senators and Members of Congress—they were bewildered—that we will continue to honour the Good Friday agreement. It is so important that we recognise what we have done in the past and where we are today and that we do not damage our hard-fought reputation.
We do not need the integrated review to understand that the world is getting more dangerous. The threats are getting more complex and more diverse. We are approaching great geopolitical change—an era of danger that we have not seen since the cold war—and at the same time the west is becoming more risk-averse and less consolidated in what we believe in and what we actually stand for. As we fight hard to secure a deal, let us not forget who we are and what we fought for. We are the founding fathers of international democracy and of the rule of law as well, so I am very pleased that the Government have conceded to grant Parliament a vote, were the powers in this Bill ever to be considered, but I am sorry that we have taken a very damaging route to get here.
As we finally conclude Brexit, let us not lose sight of the international moral high ground. The world is once again getting more dangerous. British leading leadership is once again in demand. Let us secure Brexit with our reputation repaired.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
In rising to support the Bill, I want to speak about clauses 40 to 45. I start by quoting from the manifesto that I proudly stood on. It brought not just me to the House, but so many of my colleagues. That manifesto said clearly:
“We will ensure that Northern Ireland’s businesses and producers enjoy unfettered access to the rest of the UK and that in the implementation of our Brexit deal, we maintain and strengthen the integrity and smooth operation of our internal market.”
Antony Higginbotham
I will not, because I am short on time. The clauses we are talking about today do exactly what we said in the manifesto. Clause 40 deals with Northern Ireland’s place in the UK internal market. Clause 41 deals with unfettered access. Those should be uncontroversial clauses and they should be uncontroversial because they are explicitly referenced in the protocol itself, which states that
“nothing in this Protocol prevents the United Kingdom from ensuring unfettered market access for goods moving from Northern Ireland to the rest of the United Kingdom’s internal market”.
As we have heard today, the protocol goes on to set out in high-level terms how we avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland, something that I am as committed to today as I was the day I voted for Brexit. We heard eloquently from my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) why that is so important. The protocol also sets out that it is for the Joint Committee to reach agreement on some of the specifics. It delegates decision making to that committee to finesse the detail and act in a way that is consistent with the protocol. The protocol requires both sides to negotiate in good faith, protect the Good Friday agreement and reach a free trade deal, because ultimately that free trade deal is what will prevent a hard border. That is what we are striving for, and that is what the clauses help to do.
However, given the short time before the end of the transition and that no free trade agreement has yet been agreed, we have to give thought to what happens if the EU takes an approach that is not in good faith. What if it takes a maximalist approach to what goods are considered high risk or a maximalist approach to what would constitute state aid that impacts the European Union? The outcome of that decision would not only be a major impediment to Great Britain and Northern Irish trade, but would threaten our own integrity and the Good Friday agreement. Are some seriously suggesting that in that scenario there should not be a means for the UK to respond? Are they suggesting we should look at such a situation, shrug our shoulders and say international law means we must surrender parts of our country?
I heard the concerns from Members on both sides of the Committee about international law, but let us be clear on what we are not doing. I do not think that the language has been helpful. We have heard references to rogue states, to the Novichok poisoning on UK streets and to Hong Kong citizens, but we are not breaking international criminal law. We are not breaking an international treaty on global security. We are not breaking a free trade agreement. We are saying that, having signed up to an agreement to fulfil a democratic mandate to the people of this country, which one side appears to be using to undermine our constitutional integrity, we will stand resolutely as one country in pushing back.
We have values as a country, and yes, those include standing up for an international rules-based system, the rule of law and democratic sovereignty, but when conflict arises, which it can do from time to time, Parliament remains sovereign, and this Parliament will act in the interests of our Union. That position was reaffirmed in our own EU withdrawal Act, which recognised the sovereignty of Parliament. If this Parliament is sovereign, we must act for the constitutional integrity of our country, and for that reason, I will be supporting this Bill.
Mr Robin Walker
We have heard passionate speeches from both sides of the debate and from a range of colleagues across the political spectrum in Northern Ireland and across the UK. I will not be able to take interventions because of the short time available.
In response to the specific question from the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), although I will not go into the detail of Joint Committee discussions, I can confirm that we certainly have raised the issue of state aid. We, of course, want to see that resolved through the Joint Committee, as we have repeatedly set out.
I recognise the significant concerns raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) and others across the Committee, which is why we have agreed that the break-glass provision should be included in the Bill, requiring the House of Commons to give its approval before these measures are commenced. My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) asked an important question, and we will, of course, ensure that the House has the opportunity to debate matters in full before voting on commencement of these provisions.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) has made clear, if we reach that point, the Government will have to make a persuasive case to the House. We published a statement last week saying that we will ask Parliament to support the use of provisions in the Bill only in the case of the EU being engaged in a material breach of its duties of good faith and thereby undermining the fundamental purpose of the Northern Ireland protocol.
As I set out earlier, let me reassure Members that the Government are absolutely committed to implementing the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol, meeting our obligations to secure the peace process. We continue to work with the EU in the Joint Committee to resolve outstanding issues with the Northern Ireland protocol, as the Prime Minister has set out. However, as a responsible Government, we cannot allow the economic integrity of the UK’s internal market to be inadvertently compromised by unintended consequences of the protocol. The protocol was designed as a way of implementing the needs of our exit from the EU in a way that worked for Northern Ireland, and in particular for maintaining the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, the gains of the peace process and the delicate balance that that reflects between both communities’ interests. It explicitly depends on the consent of the people of Northern Ireland for its continued existence.
We are taking limited and reasonable steps to create a legal safety net by taking powers in reserve, whereby Ministers can guarantee the integrity of our United Kingdom and ensure that the Government are always able to deliver on their commitments to the people of Northern Ireland. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) said in an excellent speech, one of those commitments is to the sustained economic growth of Northern Ireland.
These limited steps deliver on the commitments that the Government made in their general election manifesto—the manifesto on which every Government Member was returned. They deliver on the commitments made in the Command Paper published in May, and they deliver on the promises made by this Government and our predecessor to provide unfettered access between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. I therefore urge Members to vote against all amendments, other than those brought forward by the Government, to ensure the peace and prosperity of Northern Ireland and our whole United Kingdom.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 40
Northern Ireland's place in the UK internal market and customs territory
Amendment proposed: 41, page 31, line 16, at end insert—
‘(1A) When exercising any functions covered by this Part, any appropriate authority has a paramount duty—
(a) to act without prejudice to all international and domestic law, including the Withdrawal Agreement;
(b) to address the unique circumstances on the island of Ireland;
(c) to maintain the necessary conditions for continued North-South cooperation;
(d) to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland;
(e) to protect the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement in all its dimensions.” —(Stephen Farry.)
This amendment is intended to provide a safeguard so that any actions with respect to Part 5 of the Bill must be consistent with relevant existing international and domestic law commitments, including the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement and its Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol.
Business without Debate
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 2 to 6 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Exiting the European Union
That the draft European Structural and Investment Funds Common Provisions and Common Provision Rules etc. (Amendment) (EU Exit) (Revocation) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 13 July, be approved.
Infrastructure Planning
That the draft Infrastructure Planning (Electricity Storage Facilities) Order 2020, which was laid before this House on 14 July, be approved.
Representation of the People
That the draft Representation of the People (Electoral Registers Publication Date) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 15 June, be approved.
Environmental Protection
That the draft Air Quality (Domestic Solid Fuels Standards) (England) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 21 July, be approved.
Exiting the European Union (Financial Services and Markets)
That the draft Equivalence Determinations for Financial Services (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 25 June, be approved.—(David T. C. Davies.)
Question agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With the leave of the House, we will take motions 7 to 10 together.
Ordered,
Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee
That Ruth Jones be discharged from the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee and Zarah Sultana be added.
Education Committee
That Dawn Butler be discharged from the Education Committee and Fleur Anderson be added.
Public Accounts Committee
That Bridget Phillipson be discharged from the Public Accounts Committee and Barry Gardiner be added.
Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee
That Chris Evans be discharged from the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee and Navendu Mishra be added.—(Bill Wiggin, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
ARM: Foreign Acquisition
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Earlier this evening, BBC Look East reported that this was a debate worth waiting up for, so we surely must not disappoint. I am very grateful for the opportunity to raise an issue vital to my constituency, but also important for the future of the wider UK economy. I declare at the outset that I am a member of Unite the union, and I am very grateful to it for giving me the opportunity to hear directly from members employed at the company.
This urgently needed debate is to secure answers on the future of one of the UK’s most successful tech companies, ARM, which is based in my constituency. It was confirmed last Monday that it was being sold to the American tech firm Nvidia. Since it was founded in 1990 in Cambridge, ARM has become one of the UK’s best home-grown technology success stories, with huge global reach. It now designs and licenses the basic blueprints of chips used in around 90% of the world’s smartphones, as well as countless sensors, smart devices and cloud devices. Hundreds of global companies license its designs, including Apple, Samsung, Huawei and Qualcomm, putting the UK firmly at the centre of global technological development. ARM employs around 2,700 people in the UK, many in highly skilled, high-tech jobs. They work in its headquarters in Cambridge and across the country in Belfast, Manchester and Warwick.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this Adjournment debate. I share his concern, as I have a number of high-tech and modern manufacturing companies in my constituency. Does he agree that the proposed sale will be against the national interest and the UK’s ambitions to be a European technological powerhouse? It is important for us in the UK to look after our own.
Daniel Zeichner
The hon. Gentleman anticipates my arguments, because there can be little doubt that this home-grown tech star is a great national asset for the country. Back in 2016, alongside many in Cambridge and across the UK tech sector, I was hugely disappointed to see ARM sold to the Japanese conglomerate SoftBank. I warned then that we were losing control of this important national asset, and I fear we are now seeing that warning borne out.
ARM’s sell-off in 2016 was backed by this Government with conditions that its headquarters would stay in Cambridge and its staff would be maintained, and so far that guarantee has been honoured, but we are now faced with a new situation with the news of the sale last Monday. Back in 2016, the then Chancellor, Philip Hammond, considered it so significant that he announced the deal personally and legally binding guarantees enforceable by the Takeover Panel were secured. This time there has been silence from Government—a silence that I hope will be broken this evening. Although I recognise the sensitivities around commercial confidentiality, the same applied back in 2016. We need to know what the Government’s view is on the transfer of a key UK- based technology giant, particularly in such uncertain times.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. Does he agree with me that in assessing the risks of the takeover bid, we need to understand the possible repercussions for British jobs and industry if trade sanctions are put in place by President Trump, for example, as the Nvidia parent company is based in the United States?
Daniel Zeichner
I thank my hon. Friend the Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee. He makes an important point that I will come on to, but I return to the Government’s position, because I find their silence slightly ominous. It has only been breached by briefings to selected journalists and, frankly, that does not seem good enough to me.
It would be astonishing if this Government, with all their talk of world-beating test systems and taking back control, considered allowing us to lose further control of one of the only areas of technology in which we are genuinely world-beating and world-leading. It is particularly astonishing that the Government might be prepared to throw away British influence when it represents such a key bargaining chip in trade talks in a post-Brexit era. I do not think any other country in the world would allow such a jewel in the tech crown to be handed over in this way, so I urge the Government to scrutinise the deal carefully and to step in and use powers available to them to impose strict, legally binding conditions.
The sale raises a range of questions and issues of local, national and international significance. I have been raising them for many weeks now, as have trade unions and the co-founders of ARM. We have received little substantial response from Government, although I was pleased to have a direct discussion with Nvidia today. I invite the Minister to provide some answers from the Government’s perspective.
Since the announcement, Nvidia has made promises to keep ARM based in Cambridge, to hire more staff and to retain ARM’s brand, but without any legal guarantees, I fear those remain just promises—doubtless genuinely made—not guarantees. Will the Minister confirm whether the Government are seeking legal assurances in this deal to ensure that ARM’s headquarters remain in Cambridge and it retains the some 2,700 jobs it supports in my constituency and across the country? I am sure the Minister will say that it is hardly likely that Nvidia would ditch highly sought-after engineers, but members of Unite have told me that many jobs, particularly in IT, are much more vulnerable. Similarly, I am told that some 300 people in Cambridge work on graphics processors, an area in which Nvidia works. It could be a perfect match, or it could mean rationalisation and job cuts.
There is little sign of much meaningful consultation with those who work for the company. Having followed the media commentary, it has struck me that those who work for ARM hardly seem to have a voice—a doleful consequence, I fear, of a largely non-unionised workforce. The money may be good, but when it comes to times such as this, the value of having professional negotiators acting on one’s behalf becomes apparent. I am grateful for the strong interventions from not only Unite but Prospect, which also has members at ARM. I have a further question: will the Minister confirm that Cambridge will continue to be the company HQ and explain how promises will be enforced? Anyone can make promises, but will they be kept? How will they be enforced? The deal will affect jobs not just now but in the future, and could have serious ramifications.
ARM’s current business model has been highly successful. It is based on remaining neutral in the tech market and licensing chip designs to any chip maker that wants them. ARM’s co-founder Hermann Hauser has warned that although SoftBank was able to maintain ARM’s neutrality, Nvidia is different: it is a chip maker itself, so companies using ARM will now find themselves as competitors with its parent company. Some could start to seek alternatives. Nvidia has said that it will maintain ARM’s neutrality, but we have no legal assurances. Will the Government be seeking assurances that ARM’s unique business model—and so its success—will be secured?
The sale has implications both internationally and diplomatically. If ARM becomes a subsidiary of the American company Nvidia, we will in effect be handing over control to the current US Government, as it could become subject to their foreign investment regulatory committee, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. The Trump Administration will then ultimately hold the reins over which countries use the technology—which is used in almost all mobile phone chips in the world—and where it will be possible to export it.
It is quite clear that Trump has no qualms about interfering in the operations of tech companies to pursue his own foreign policy goals. Chinese tech companies have already voiced concerns that American ownership of ARM could jeopardise access to ARM technologies for their businesses. Some may not be bothered about that, but it highlights the real role that this UK-located tech giant plays in the international struggle for technological sovereignty.
We need guarantees that ARM is not going to be embroiled in American trade wars and that decisions over this key technology are not completely lost to us. As the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee said:
“The sale of @Arm raises questions of sovereignty. Control of tech is an essential element of independence and @UKParliament will have no say on the CFIUS decisions that go to the US President alone.”
I agree. To safeguard the UK’s interests, we need clear conditions on the takeover to exempt ARM’s tech from intrusive US regulations.
The takeover comes more than a year after the Government’s telecoms supply chain review report, in which the Government committed to diversifying the UK telecommunication supply chain. Since then, a plan to do just that has repeatedly been promised and repeatedly been delayed. Will the Minister explain just how selling this UK-headquartered, world-leading telecoms supplier to a competitor supports the diversification of the supply chain?
I understand that the Government say they are looking into the takeover and that Ministers are considering whether to refer it to the Competition and Markets Authority. I also appreciate that Government policy is in a state of flux, with a pattern of tech businesses being taken over, the status of the industrial strategy unclear, and the national security and investment Bill yet to be published, so we have to use what we have. The Government have the power to impose conditions on such takeovers if they threaten national security or financial stability, which the selling of ARM to Nvidia clearly does.
I appreciate that the Minister who will respond to this debate is the Minister for Digital and Culture, not a Minister from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy or the Minister for Security—that serves to highlight the complexity of the issue. Last time, the Chancellor took ownership; we need the same again. We need a coherent, cross-Government response, led from the top. I urge the Minister to consider such issues carefully, make the case to her colleagues and wake up to the threat that the deal poses unless strict, legally binding conditions are applied.
In conclusion, will the Minister confirm today whether it is the Government’s intention to refer the takeover to the Competition and Markets Authority? Do the Government intend to place clear conditions on the deal to guarantee that ARM’s HQ will stay in Cambridge; that jobs will be protected; that its unique business model will be secured; and that its technology will not be a lever in future trade negotiations that this Government have handed to our competitors?
Mr Speaker
Order. It is a half-hour debate. I have not been told that you wish to speak and I am not sure whether the person who is holding the debate has either. You can intervene, but I have not been given notice of anybody else. Have you been told, Daniel Zeichner?
Mr Speaker
Has the Minister been told? Three people are meant to know in an Adjournment debate: the Minister, the Chair, and the person whose debate it is.
Mr Speaker
I am happy, but the courtesies have not been carried out, as I understand it.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister and I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on securing this debate on a subject that is important to his constituents and to all of us. I also congratulate everybody associated with ARM, which is a great British success story of the type that we need more of in this country.
I am an optimist and I believe that ARM will prosper under its new ownership. Nvidia is an exciting company that works on some of the cutting-edge technologies that ARM has excelled in. I hope it will open the world to more opportunities. I welcome, as the hon. Gentleman has, the commitments that have been given to maintain a presence in Cambridge and to build an artificial intelligence centre there.
I also hope that the new owners will enjoy the benefits of operating in the United Kingdom with our adherence to the rule of law and to the English language and the pro-enterprise environment. ARM will also greatly benefit from the Government’s commitment to double investment in science, which is a point of alignment on both sides of the House.
I beg to differ with the hon. Gentleman on the two things that I think businesses such as ARM need to prosper and thrive. The first is certainty, which is rarely aided when the Government get involved. As the hon. Gentleman will know, ARM made 24 acquisitions to get the business to the place it is in today. If the Government had intervened on those acquisitions, perhaps it would not have been so successful.
Secondly, businesses need access to capital, which used to be one of the great strengths of the United Kingdom. We had a vibrant new listings market that the Hermann Hausers of tomorrow would be looking to. Another unforeseen effect of the Government making an intervention would be that our capital markets would become less attractive, less competitive and less able to foster the ARMs of the future, which is what the Government should seek to do to create the jobs, opportunity and prosperity that the country will need.
The Minister for Digital and Culture (Caroline Dinenage)
I start by thanking the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) for securing this debate on an important matter, to which he is right to bring the attention of the House. His constituency is a vital part of our nation’s tech environment, and I fully understand that many of his constituents’ jobs are in the sector.
The Government are incredibly passionate about protecting a vibrant, successful and growing tech sector in the UK, and about remaining at the cutting edge of innovation. A key part of that is the design of microprocessors, which are crucial for building reliable and predictable chips for worldwide customers. ARM is at the heart of that semiconductor ecosystem. As one of the largest tech companies in Europe, it is hard to overstate ARM’s significance to the wider sector, as the hon. Gentleman articulated beautifully. It has massive potential to give our country an advantage in a wide range of sectors and technologies.
The Government closely monitor all acquisitions and mergers. When a takeover may have a significant impact on the UK, we will not hesitate to investigate further and take appropriate action. In this case, we are working hard to understand the full impact of the move and the potential impact it may have on the future. From there, we are able to consider what steps we may wish to take.
Caroline Dinenage
I will in a moment. I will make a bit of progress, then I will be happy to take the hon. Gentleman’s questions.
The Enterprise Act 2002 allows the Government to call in transactions on four public interest grounds: financial stability, national security, media plurality and public health emergencies. When a Secretary of State decides to intervene under the Act, they declare a public interest intervention notice. That triggers a deadline for the Competition and Markets Authority to conduct what it calls a phase 1 investigation. The CMA will then engage with the parties while it gathers the information and publishes an invitation to comment notice. That invites views from the merger parties and other interested third parties on the transaction under review. At the end of that phase 1 stage, the Secretary of State can: clear the merger, clear the merger with undertakings, or refer the merger to a phase 2 investigation. At the conclusion of the phase 2 investigation, the Secretary of State would consider if the transaction meets the threshold for intervention on public interest grounds under the Enterprise Act, and therefore make a decision on the necessary steps if and when it would be appropriate to do so.
The reason I am explaining that to the hon. Gentleman is that I think it is really important to articulate the number of very careful steps we would have to take in that process. In this instance, the Secretary of State for Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport would be the final decision maker. It is obviously extremely critical that he does so with an independent mind, having received all the relevant information and without prejudice. I am sure he will understand that while I am very happy to stand at the Dispatch Box and answer as many of his questions as possible, I have to be very careful not to say anything that could in any way prejudice that decision or any future moves. However, I will try to answer as many of his questions as I can.
As the hon. Gentleman will know, on Monday 14 September Nvidia and Softbank Group announced a definitive agreement under which Nvidia will acquire ARM Limited from Softbank in a transaction valued at $40 billion. The announcement stated that Softbank will remain committed to ARM’s long-term success through its ownership stake in Nvidia, which is expected to be under 10%. Furthermore, the statement said that ARM will remain headquartered in Cambridge. Nvidia and Softbank have made statements to the media expressing their commitment to maintaining ARM as a successful business in the UK. They have suggested that they will build on ARM’s R&D presence here by establishing a global centre of excellence and will create a platform for global innovation with industry partners across multiple fields. We will consider all those statements incredibly carefully.
Jim Shannon
Yesterday’s papers suggested that last year ARM paid some £268 million in tax and that it has the potential to be Britain’s first trillion dollar company. Has the Minister had any assurances from the company about its commitment to keeping its tax base here, and thereby the tax it pays to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs her as well?
Caroline Dinenage
We have had conversations with the company at various points over recent months. However, I do not want to prejudice the situation in any way, shape or form, so I do not really want to discuss any of its commercial aspects, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
Darren Jones
As a point of factual clarification, could the Minister confirm whether the impact of US trade sanctions is considered in the process that she set out with the CMA?
Caroline Dinenage
I think that that would depend on which aspect, of the four that are under consideration, the Secretary of State was looking at.
As the hon. Member for Cambridge and others know, the UK is a global leader in tech, with a proud history of innovation and invention. Our world-leading universities, financial sector and regulatory environment have produced pioneering researchers, scientific institutions and research projects, and the UK tech sector has the world’s highest proportion of overseas customers, driving our ability to forge global partnerships and attract the very best talent from around the world. From artificial intelligence to biotechnology, the UK has made huge breakthroughs, generating more billion-dollar tech firms than any other country in Europe. Nationally, we now have 82 companies that are worth more than $1 billion—more than France, Germany and the Netherlands combined.
We will, of course, continue to invest in science and technology and R&D-intensive emerging sectors such as artificial intelligence, quantum technologies and robotics. We will also continue to promote the UK as the very best place to start and grow a tech business. We have the skills, the location and the language, alongside a business-friendly environment, strong access to finance and a long-standing reputation for innovation.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful to the Minister for taking a further intervention. I just want to clarify who the Government have been talking to. She said that there have been conversations with the company—is that ARM or Nvidia? It is a key difference. I understand the point she makes about the sensitivities, but the same was true in 2016, and it was possible then for the Government to secure guarantees. Why not now?
Caroline Dinenage
Ministers and officials have spoken to various parties in recent days, and we will continue to do so as we seek to understand the full implications of this transaction from every angle.
The hon. Gentleman will know how diverse our tech sector is in the UK. I know that Cambridge has a greater proportion of people in tech than any other city in the UK besides Belfast, so I fully appreciate the worry that this causes for him and his constituents. Well over 2,000 people are based in ARM’s Cambridge headquarters, and we are determined to see that continue. I thank him for his continued interest. I am sorry that I have not been able to answer all his questions as fully as he would have liked me to or as I would have liked to, but I promise that I will keep him closely abreast of this issue as it develops.
Question put and agreed to.
Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Member eligible for proxy vote | Nominated proxy |
|---|---|
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) | Chris Elmore |
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) | Stuart Andrew |
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) | Stuart Andrew |
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) | Patrick Grady |
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) | Stuart Andrew |
Margaret Beckett (Derby South) | Clive Efford |
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) | Stuart Andrew |
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) | Chris Elmore |
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) | Patrick Grady |
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) | Stuart Andrew |
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) | Patrick Grady |
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) | Stuart Andrew |
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) | Patrick Grady |
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) | Chris Elmore |
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) | Zarah Sultana |
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) | Beth Winter |
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) | Chris Elmore |
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) | Patrick Grady |
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) | Chris Elmore |
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) | Chris Elmore |
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) | Patrick Grady |
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) | Chris Elmore |
Theo Clarke (Stafford) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) | Stuart Andrew |
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) | Chris Elmore |
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) | Stuart Andrew |
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) | Patrick Grady |
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) | Patrick Grady |
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) | Chris Elmore |
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) | Caroline Nokes |
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) | Chris Elmore |
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) | Chris Elmore |
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) | Chris Evans |
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) | Chris Elmore |
David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) | Stuart Andrew |
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) | Patrick Grady |
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) | Rachel Hopkins |
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) | Patrick Grady |
Peter Dowd (Bootle) | Chris Elmore |
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) | Chris Elmore |
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) | Jeremy Hunt |
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) | Maria Caulfield |
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) | Stuart Andrew |
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) | Patrick Grady |
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) | Patrick Grady |
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) | Stuart Andrew |
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) | Bim Afolami |
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) | Chris Elmore |
Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) | Caroline Nokes |
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) | Tom Tugendhat |
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) | Chris Elmore |
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) | Stuart Andrew |
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) | Patrick Grady |
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) | Patrick Grady |
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) | Chris Elmore |
James Grundy (Leigh) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) | Chris Elmore |
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) | Chris Elmore |
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) | Chris Elmore |
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) | Fay Jones |
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) | Chris Elmore |
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) | Maria Caulfield |
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) | Stuart Andrew |
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) | Chris Elmore |
Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) | Stuart Andrew |
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) | Chris Elmore |
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) | Stuart Andrew |
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) | Chris Elmore |
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Knight (Solihull) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) | Kate Osborne |
Chris Law (Dundee West) | Patrick Grady |
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) | Stuart Andrew |
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) | Chris Elmore |
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) | Cat Smith |
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) | Lee Rowley |
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) | Stuart Andrew |
Holly Lynch (Halifax) | Chris Elmore |
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) | Patrick Grady |
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) | Stuart Andrew |
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) | Patrick Grady |
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) | Stuart Andrew |
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) | Chris Elmore |
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) | Zarah Sultana |
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) | Patrick Grady |
Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) | Chris Elmore |
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) | Chris Elmore |
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) | Mark Spencer |
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) | Chris Elmore |
Mark Menzies (Fylde) | Stuart Andrew |
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) | Stuart Andrew |
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) | Stuart Andrew |
James Murray (Ealing North) | Chris Elmore |
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) | Chris Elmore |
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) | Patrick Grady |
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) | Rebecca Harris |
Guy Opperman (Hexham) | Stuart Andrew |
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) | Nadia Whittome |
Owen Paterson North Shropshire) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) | Peter Aldous |
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) | Chris Elmore |
Christina Rees (Neath) | Chris Elmore |
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) | Chris Elmore |
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) | Rebecca Harris |
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) | Chris Elmore |
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) | Patrick Grady |
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) | Chris Elmore |
Henry Smith (Crawley) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Glasgow Central) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) | Stuart Andrew |
Mel Stride (Central Devon) | Stuart Andrew |
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) | Olivia Blake |
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) | Chris Elmore |
Hywel Williams (Arfon) | Liz Saville Roberts |
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) | Patrick Grady |
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions on Gatherings) (North of England) Regulations 2020
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions on Gatherings) (North of England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions on Gatherings) (North of England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (North of England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (North of England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions on Gatherings) (North of England) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 828).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions on Gatherings) (North of England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 846), the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions on Gatherings) (North of England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 865), the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (North of England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 897) and the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (North of England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 931).
Jo Churchill
It is my pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. The regulations came into force on 4 August to tackle the outbreak of coronavirus in parts of the north of England. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care was made aware that the latest epidemiological data showed high transmission rates of covid-19 across Greater Manchester, areas of Lancashire and West Yorkshire. It was therefore necessary to impose restrictions to prevent further spread of the virus.
On 8 August, following concerns about the significant increase in local incidence rates of the virus, the regulations were amended to extend their remit to include Preston. On Wednesday 15 August, a further amendment to the regulations meant that the national restrictions that were lifted across England would not be applied to those areas covered by the regulations, due to the high incidence rates remaining across such areas. However, by Wednesday 26 August, on reviewing the up-to-date epidemiolocal data and information from local authorities, directors of public health, Public Health England, the Joint Biosecurity Centre and contain teams, the Secretary of State was able to remove Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council and Rossendale Borough Council from the protected area. This meant that the restrictions remaining in those areas aligned with the those on the rest of England. On 2 September, we were able to remove certain wards in Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council and Kirklees Metropolitan Council from the regulations following another review.
The concerns about the outbreak of coronavirus in the north of England have been significant, and the engagement with local leaders has been extensive and productive. I want to thank all local authorities and local resilience forums, Public Health England and the Joint Biosecurity Centre—as well as local directors of public health, all council leaders and the Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham—for their ongoing support. I also want to emphasise that the decision to take action on each occasion was not driven by numbers alone; it was a judgment about the overall situation, taking into account not only the epidemiological evidence, but local insights and views.
Action had already been taken to protect the people living in the affected areas in the weeks before the regulations came into force, such as increased testing and public health support. We also gave additional funding to all upper tier local authorities involved. That enabled them to enhance the various local interventions and to support measures that have been put in place. We hoped that those interventions and the work of local public health teams would get the infection rate down without our having to take more drastic action. When the regulations came into force, however, the incidence rates in almost all these geographic areas were significantly above the national average.
Pendle had the highest incidence rate in England between 31 July and 6 August, at 89.7 infections per 100,000 people. Oldham had the second highest rate, at 82.3, and nine other local authorities in the north had rates in excess of 30 per 100,000. The epidemiological data and local insights suggested that the most likely route for the increased transmission of covid-19 was as a result of people living in different households in the area meeting up with one another. Multigenerational households, households with several members and those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds have experienced a higher risk of transmission.
However, by the end of July, it was clear that rates of infection were continuing to increase to undesirable levels. The cross-Government covid-19 operations committee, chaired by the Prime Minister, decided on 30 July to take further measures to tackle the outbreak, and the Secretary of State set out the measures in his statement. In general, these regulations prohibited households in the relevant areas of the north of England mixing with each other in their homes or gardens, apart from those with support bubbles or in other limited circumstances, such as on compassionate grounds. Some exceptions include work purposes, education or training, emergency protection, to avoid injury or escape harm, to facilitate a house move, to provide care to vulnerable people or to visit family members who are dying.
These regulations also included a provision extending that restriction to the protected areas covered by the separate Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford) Regulations 2020. The regulations include provisions making it a criminal offence to breach any of the restrictions or requirements. As with the national regulations, those who breach these provisions can be issued with a fixed penalty notice, with increasingly larger fines for repeated breaches. Offenders can also be fined following conviction.
Due to the increasing incidence rate in Preston as the regulations came into force, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made the decision to add Preston to the restricted area covered by the regulations, extending the ban on households mixing with each other to residents of the city. Despite the restriction on inter-household mixing introduced on 5 August, the incidence rates continued to rise or remain undesirably high. Consequently, on 15 August, further restrictions were imposed requiring certain businesses and venues to remain closed, despite their being able to reopen elsewhere in England. The venues in each local authority area that had to remain closed for the time being included casinos, indoor skating rinks, indoor swimming pools and water parks, indoor play areas, indoor fitness and dance studios, indoor gyms and sports courts, bowling alleys, conference centres and exhibition halls.
By 26 August, rates had fallen or remained acceptably low in Rossendale and Wigan and by 2 September rates had also fallen much safer levels across Stockport, Burnley and Hyndburn, as well as across certain wards within Calderdale and Kirklees. In the light of the improving situation in all those areas at those dates, the Secretary of State removed them from the regulations, so the only restrictions remaining in force in each area were those applicable to the rest of England. The regulations must be reviewed every 14 days to consider the need for the restrictions to continue. The next review is due on or before 25 September. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State committed to reviewing them weekly, which he continues to do.
Given the urgency of the situation in the north of England, we used the emergency procedure to make the present set of regulations as soon as we could. They give effect to the decisions set out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in response to the up-to-date epidemiological data and situational awareness relevant to each local authority area. Alongside the regulations, we provided guidance on the www.gov.uk website explaining what people living in an affected area can and cannot do.
Since these regulations and their amendments were implemented, the Government have continued to review the ongoing situation. The incidence rates in most of these local authorities have increased and remain high. Although we are debating only these five statutory instruments, there have been regular reviews considering the positions in each local authority area, and we remain concerned about the continued high level of the virus in many of them, primarily driven by community transmission. People must follow the Government’s clear guidance to socially distance, wash hands frequently and wear face coverings in public indoor places.
We always knew that the path out of lockdown would not be entirely smooth. It was always likely that infections would rise in particular areas or workplaces, and that we would need to be able to respond quickly and flexibly to those outbreaks. The collective actions taken across the north of England have demonstrated a willingness and ability to take action where needed. We will, of course, use the experience of the restrictions in the north of England to help inform and develop our responses to any current local outbreaks.
As I said earlier, we will continue to make public the outcome of the reviews. I am very grateful to all Members for their continued engagement in this challenging process, and in the scrutiny of the regulations. I would particularly like to thank people in those parts of Lancashire, Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire who have, in general, responded well to the measures put in place. It is thanks to their continued efforts that the changes to the boundaries were made, and we hope to ease measures further if improvements continue. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I thank the Minister for her remarks and explanations of what the Government are seeking to do, as well as for her efforts over the past six months. It has been an awful lot of work for Ministers, and we are grateful; when we disagree, I hope that we disagree firmly but well.
It is a funny time to be in opposition. The clue is in the name: we oppose very many, if not most, of the things in the Government’s legislative agenda. We have significant concerns about some or all of them, so we seek to amend, we scrutinise, and in that way we hope to improve our parliamentary democracy. On any issue, it is very easy to engage in the narcissism of small differences, but in a pandemic that will not do. If the Government say, “There is a rule of six,” we could very easily say, “It should be a rule of five, or a rule of seven.” We could play that game all day—indeed, I was on the radio on Thursday, and people were saying just that. “You are too co-operative. The Opposition are too supportive of the restrictions being put on our freedoms.”
Similarly—obviously, this gained much more coverage—on Sunday morning, my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition reiterated that we support the Government on the restrictions being put in place. We think it is obvious that if the infection rate increases, restrictions have to increase as well, but there were some extraordinary comments on Twitter—this was just from our own side—about how easily we were rolling over. I should probably never look at the comments, but sometimes I cannot help it.
The point I am building up to, however, is that the well of good will is not unlimited, because there is a real problem. Hon. Members will have read their papers, and will know that what we are discussing now is long after the fact. I do not think we would be popping anybody’s bubble or revealing what is behind the curtain, if I can mix my metaphors, to say that today is a bit of a fool’s errand. We are meeting weeks and weeks after these regulations were not only put in place, but changed. The first one we are discussing has since been amended on essentially four different occasions. There has to be a sense of reality about what we are doing, but hopefully also a recognition that, fundamentally, as an operation, this will not do. Are these very significant changes to happen on a very regular basis, only to be scrutinised in Parliament seven weeks later? I do not think so. It is not good for us as an Opposition, and it is also not good for the Government or for Government Back Benchers.
Of course, these regulations came into effect on 5 August. At that point, people living in the 15 local authority areas specified, as well as Blackburn—which was already under alternative restrictions—could no longer meet in groups of two or more households in a private dwelling, or in groups of more than 30 people outdoors. A variety of other conditions and exceptions was also in place. I recall this well: I was up in Manchester myself when it was announced, visiting my sister and her newborn baby, and I needed to beat a hasty retreat lest I had to stay there. I do not think my constituents would have been too impressed by that.
Again, we broadly support these measures and the intention behind them, because we all want to halt the spread of the virus, and we know that keeping people safe must be the No. 1 priority. However, we as an Opposition have to put on the record our concerns that it has taken seven weeks for us to get here. I talked to the Minister before we started, and I am sure that her colleagues have had a series of different versions of these delegated legislation Committees over the past few weeks.
Normally, we would put up my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), but we are giving him a bit of a rest. I think that is why they have sent me out to bat: some fresh legs with half an hour to go, to run around and put a few tackles in, which has never been something I have worried about doing.
This point needs to be reiterated. We are rightly talking about having control of this virus, but there is concern across the House and definitely among the population that we do not now have control of the virus, and are certainly losing it. A big part of that control has to be our understanding and scrutiny of the regulations, their quality, and their effectiveness.
Of course, we need to act efficiently. We would never support a situation where important and effective regulation that was needed could not be introduced in a timely manner, because we had not yet got to Committee Room 10 to deal with it. We know the pattern on which the regulations will be popping up—a statement from the Health Secretary has just finished and there will be one from the Prime Minister tomorrow—and I do not think it is beyond the realms of possibility that new regulations are coming. However, while we are talking about regulations from seven weeks ago, when will we reach the new ones? Will it take seven weeks? I do not think that that will be in our interest or anyone else’s. I hope that the Minister will address that point.
I know that the subject has been raised many times by Members on both sides of the House, and in the other place. We cannot be here just to rubber stamp what the Government propose. That stretches things too far. I believe that we are taking responsible paths, although I say that with the caveat that I state whenever I do any media work. When I open my emails, half of them say that I have been too hard on the Government and am not supporting the national effort; the other half say that the Opposition are too acquiescent. Who knows? Nevertheless, I do not think that anyone would think arriving late and rubber stamping a measure is in our interest or is what our constituents need from us.
Mr Speaker gets upset, as do we, that often we hear of important policy changes on a Friday or Sunday night, long before Parliament has the opportunity to hear them. Sometimes I talk about that to my friends who are non-political and they say, “Well, you know, you can’t be that person who’s worried about being told first.” I remember Gareth from “The Office”, who would always insist on having the news whispered in his ear just before the big team meeting so that he knew it first. That is not the point or what we are saying. We are saying that we have a parliamentary democracy for a reason. It is a very effective one and has been this way for a long time. We all treasure and love it. We must be among its greatest enthusiasts because we choose to come here every day. We cannot lose that, even in the most important circumstances. That is when it becomes all the more important.
However, we have had regulations coming into force only a quarter of an hour after they are available to read. Including the five before the Committee, there are 17 measures being debated this week, all of which are already in force. Other regulations have come into force before being revoked and never seen. There seems to be no opportunity during this period of time to debate them, and that will not work. We are hoping for some clarity and commitment from the Minister, and an assurance that the Government are actively seeking to get upstream of this blizzard of regulations.
I would hate to take the job of Whip, held by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington—I really would not want it—but I am sure the Opposition would be constructive about shifting the backlog if it meant that we could deal with regulations in something closer to real time. That would be better for everyone. However, this is not just about Parliament; it is a question of the cue we send out to the public. If they feel that the process is rushed or bypassed, there is a danger of undermining Parliament’s credibility.
People in the north are reasonable and intelligent—I am one of them. They are not daft and they know when things are being cooked up on the fly. I have heard that from friends and family. If they feel that measures are arbitrary, and that they have been made on the hoof, that undermines their confidence in whether they should stick to them or whether to say, “Just pop round, and no one will ever really know.” We know that in fighting the virus that will not do.
It is hard, as I mentioned a couple of minutes ago, not to reflect that we have just had a statement from the Health Secretary and there will be one from the Prime Minister tomorrow, and there was a chief advisers’ press conference this morning. We would never say no to hearing more information and certainly not to having more opportunities to talk about it, but it is hard to explain to a lay person what process of swift, clear and effective decision-making those things reflect.
Compliance is key to our success in getting out from under the virus and making the measures work. That is why we need to scrutinise them and have our say on them. As I have said, we do not propose to divide the Committee, but that does not mean we do not want greater understanding of some of the Government’s ideas. Certainly, as we get into discussion of curfews or hospitality closing times, we want to understand precisely the science behind such things.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. My colleague is making an important point. I hope Members will forgive me for repeating something that has come up at many similar Committee sittings. We represent communities to whom we are answerable, who want to know what is going on—why such measures are being passed, and why the policies are being imposed on communities. It is very difficult to explain what is happening when we have not had scrutiny or access to Ministers. Explanations should be upstream of any regulations being made, as my hon. Friend said. Back Benchers across the House are crying out for that. There should be a strategy that explains why the measures might be required in future. Strategic thinking needs to take place in advance, in anticipation of the circumstances. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Alex Norris
Yes, I do. Again, that is necessary for public confidence. We have supported the Government throughout. As infection rates decrease, we can open up more things and do more things. As infection rates rise, there will be greater restrictions. It would be better to understand what greater restrictions mean earlier in the process. Instead, it feels as though we are always running to catch up.
I am in danger of being much more negative than I usually am, but I have the chance to extol some virtues and talk about the benefits that we have today. We at least have hindsight at our disposal. We do not often get reviews of legislation this quickly after it has come into force, but today we have that. On 5 August, the seven-day case average in the north-west region, which is a good cipher for the area we are talking about, was just under 250. On 2 September, with the most recent of the four amendments, the seven-day case average was 486, and last week the rolling day average peaked at 1,200 on Wednesday.
It is therefore clear that although the regulations might have been effective, they are not entirely sufficient. That makes the case for greater restrictions. People need to understand that, even though it is frustrating. Certainly in the communities where freedoms have been curtailed, no doubt willingly, to beat the virus and protect each other, they need to understand the picture, what has happened subsequently and why we need to go further. We have a duty as an Opposition to point out that that was undermined by slowness in the early stages regarding personal protective equipment; lockdown itself; social care and more; the lack of scrutiny, as I mentioned; and particularly now, as we reflect on this here in Parliament, the shambles that is test and trace.
Short of a wonder vaccine, which will be gladly received when it comes, test and trace is our most critical weapon to get out from underneath this, but at the moment it is not happening. It is not working in a timely manner to properly find those who have coronavirus and to isolate them. That is why we are seeing the virus spread. Will the Minister update us on the progress towards getting a system that meets what the Prime Minister said in June about a 24-hour turnaround in response, because that is what it will take?
Can we hear a little more about what was briefed over the weekend? I am a man of the world—I understand that things get briefed to the Sunday newspapers. Since the beginning of the pandemic, we have been calling for a recognition that if those who are being asking to self-isolate are offered only statutory sick pay that pushes them into poverty, that will be an incentive not to comply with the regulations. That is not a good thing, but it is entirely human. The £500 figure was briefed over the weekend. Will the Minister tell us more about that?
I have three final points. We have not had much of a debate on the merits of these specific restrictions because the horse is three fields down by now, but it would be interesting to hear the Minister’s view on where we are currently and where she feels we will be next week, in a month’s time and in three months’ time. We want a sense of what the journey is, even if that journey means things are getting more challenging. Okay, that will mean greater restrictions, but what sorts of restrictions and when? It would be good for Parliament and for everybody to know that.
I am sure this is close to your heart, Mr Hollobone, as someone with a long history in local government, but will the Minister tell us a little more about local authority engagement? She said in her contribution that that has always been good. That is not always the picture that we get from local councils in respect of whether conversations have happened and whether the announcement reflects them. Can we hear what process is being used to engage with council leaders?
Finally, regulation 4 of the first set of regulations requires a review at least once every 14 days, so there must have been three since they came into effect. I wonder why the results of the reviews have not been made public, and whether they could be more routinely in future. That would give us something better to debate when evaluating their effectiveness.
I will draw to a conclusion there; I have made my point on timeliness and I hope the Minister can address it.
Jo Churchill
I place on the record my thanks for the hon. Gentleman’s tone; I am grateful for the support. As we know from this morning’s announcement by Professor Whitty and Patrick Vallance, this is a difficult, fluid situation that is changing. It is important, as I answer some of the questions that the hon. Gentleman put to me, that we keep that level of dynamism in mind, because that is the problem: we cannot see into the future. One of the challenges is that if we pre-empt where we are going, we are much more likely to be over-restrictive than under-restrictive.
The one thing we have not heard in the offer of support is how that support would work within the parliamentary framework. Do we sit for seven days, because these things are arguably coming at us hourly? Do we do it on a smaller basis? Do we go through usual channels? This is considerably more complex. I understand the point the hon. Gentleman makes, because often members of the public are not sure how this place works, and there is a challenge in helping them to understand why we do things in certain ways.
Matt Western
The Minister makes a valid point. As a constructive suggestion, we have Westminster Hall and we have spare capacity in this place. How about using Westminster Hall solely for the purpose of having these debates about everything related to the covid-19 pandemic and how we work our way through it, and we could do stuff in advance?
Jo Churchill
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his suggestion; I am sure my Whip will take that away and feed it up through the usual channels. The hon. Gentleman makes the point that there are other places on the estate but, as he will know, there are also restrictions on movement around the estate and what parts of if we can move to.
The restrictions we have debated today are necessary and important for three reasons. First, and most importantly, they are necessary to protect the people in the north of England and surrounding areas from this terrible virus. The restrictions imposed have been difficult, but I think the people of the north of England recognise that the measures have been paramount to try to stop the spread of the virus.
Secondly, the restrictions protect those of us outside the north of England. Containing was very much the strategy laid out on 10 May. These restrictions greatly reduce the risk of transmission within the protected area, which in turn reduces the risk of infection rates increasing elsewhere. We recognise and appreciate that in abiding by these restrictions, those in the north of England benefit the whole country, and I place on the record my thanks to them.
Thirdly, the restrictions show the absolute determination to respond to the outbreaks of the virus in a focused and effective way. We are learning from what happened in the north of England as we work with local authorities and others to respond to future localised outbreaks, such as those that one of my colleagues will be debating in the House in due course. Indeed, we were able to work down to a granular, ward-by-ward level, but we have found that it is probably not the best strategy to open up on that basis.
The next review of the regulations will take place on or before 25 September. I am grateful to hon. Members for their contributions to the date today. I would like to address the point that the hon. Member for Nottingham North made first about timeliness and speed. The Government are confident that the regulations were made lawfully under the emergency procedure of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984. They are receiving parliamentary scrutiny in accordance with the emergency procedure, and are being debated within 28 days.
The challenge with these regulations is that we caught the tail end of recess, which obviously pushed them out a little further. The procedure allows us to respond quickly to the serious and imminent threat to public health posed by coronavirus, first by imposing restrictions to break the transmission chain and to protect people, and secondly by removing those restrictions when it is safe to do so. The regulations we are debating show how fluidly and quickly we can make those adjustments and changes.
The Secretary of State considers that the requirements imposed by the regulations are a proportionate public health response to the threat of incidence and spread in England of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2— SARS-CoV-2—or covid-19. The regulations set out that a review of those requirements must take place every 14 days to ensure that they continue to be necessary to
“prevent, protect against, control or provide a public health response to the incidence or spread of infection”.
It is also important that timely reviews are made so that restrictions are not overly imposed on any part of the population.
We have subsequently amended the regulations to ensure that we continue to take necessary steps to protect public health as national restrictions were lifted over the summer—amendments were accordingly made on 8, 15 and 26 August. The hon. Member for Nottingham North asked how decisions are made locally and what the system is. Public Health England, the Joint Biosecurity Centre and NHS Test and Trace are constantly monitoring the levels of infection across the country, and work with local authorities to implement additional control measures as appropriate. Those decisions will be taken on a case-by-case basis, which is why that local knowledge is so important, and advice may differ according to the specific circumstances of any given outbreak. Indeed, tomorrow we will be talking about an outbreak in and around a place of work, which is obviously quite different.
The watchlist is already publicly available in Public Health England’s weekly surveillance report, and the decision to place restrictions on local authorities in the north of England was based on a number of factors, including not just the positivity rate, but the incidence rate of the virus, the extent of high-risk behaviours and the rise in the increased risk of transmission between the population. The next review will take place on Friday 25th—this Friday—and we are debating the regulations before that review. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will consider all those factors when making his decision.
As I have just mentioned, we have increased the capacity of the test and trace system by more than 10% in the last few weeks, with the aim of reaching 500,000 tests per day by the end of October. I pay tribute to all those involved in the test and trace system because, initially, we could process some 2,000 per day. We are now well over 240,000 per day, and some capacity, including antibody tests, is well over 370,000 tests per day. We are on track to hit 500,000 tests per day by the end of October. There are four new Lighthouse labs coming on stream, including Newport, Newcastle, Charnwood and Brants Bridge. There are hundreds of additional staff and capacity is being bought up abroad. Test and trace has led to more than 420,000 people isolating who may otherwise have spread the virus. As we heard this morning, breaking that transmission chain is so important.
Matt Western
I thank the Minister for giving way—she is being very generous. I have an observation: I visited our testing centre at the Ricoh Arena in north Coventry, which serves the whole region of Warwickshire and Coventry. In the hour I spent there yesterday, only 16 cars went in. There was clearly a lot of capacity—a big facility has been established there—and very professional people on site, but there must be a disconnect between the capacity she describes, which I saw, and what is being fed through to those centres. The numbers that she describes are huge, but I am not seeing that on the ground.
Jo Churchill
I think what we are all seeing on the ground is that demand has become exponential in the past few weeks. It is therefore a question of the system catching up, but it is important that the Government assess the risk factors and continue to protect healthcare workers and members of the social care workforce first to ensure that we are protecting the most vulnerable in society with the capacity that we have, and then begin to move through to other key workers. We need to have a risk stratification approach as the numbers increase.
This country’s population is in the region of 67 million. Even with a testing rate at 500,000 per day, it would take some weeks to get through that. There has to be a marrying of the testing capacity within the testing facilities and the ability of the labs to have the throughput that backs up behind it. We are doing an enormous number of tests, and it has been noted that we actually have a larger throughput than Germany, Italy, Spain and France.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
The Minister mentions Germany. I have just come back from Italy. Why is it that Germany and Italy have such lower numbers than the UK?
Jo Churchill
With the greatest of respect, I will move on, because we are somewhat going away from the regulations we are discussing. I was asked specifically about the test and trace figures in and around the north of England, rather than those stretching across Europe.
Jo Churchill
No, I am sorry, but I will not give way.
The north of England regulations were also amended on 2 and 8 September. The amendments made on 2 September removed certain local authorities or specified wards from the protected area under the regulations, following the decrease in incidence rates of the virus in those areas. On 8 September, the regulations were amended to enable certain businesses and venues to reopen, in line with elsewhere in England. The remaining restrictions continue to prohibit people from different households meeting in each other’s homes or private gardens, and to stop a small number of businesses reopening—for example, nightclubs remain closed in the relevant parts of the north of England, as is the case across the rest of England, for quite sensible precautionary reasons.
Let me conclude by recording on behalf of the Government our thanks to the people of Lancashire, Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire, particularly the health and social care workers—indeed, all key workers in those areas—for their ongoing hard work and dedication in keeping our vital services running and for saving lives throughout these unprecedented times.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions on Gatherings) (North of England) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 828).
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions on Gatherings) (North of England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions on Gatherings) (North of England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 846).—(Jo Churchill.)
HEALTH PROTECTION (CORONAVIRUS, RESTRICTIONS ON GATHERINGS) (NORTH OF ENGLAND) (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) REGULATIONS 2020
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions on Gatherings) (North of England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 865).— (Jo Churchill.)
HEALTH PROTECTION (CORONAVIRUS, RESTRICTIONS) (NORTH OF ENGLAND) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2020
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (North of England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 897).—(Jo Churchill.)
HEALTH PROTECTION (CORONAVIRUS, RESTRICTIONS) (NORTH OF ENGLAND) (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) REGULATIONS 2020
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (North of England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 931).—(Jo Churchill.)
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place and on Public Transport) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that we are applying social distancing, so I would be grateful if you sat in the places indicated. If you have speaking notes that you want to supply to Hansard, please do not send hard copies but email them to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
The Minister for Patient Safety, Mental Health and Suicide Prevention (Ms Nadine Dorries)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No.839).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020 No. 882) and the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place and on Public Transport) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020 No. 906).
Ms Dorries
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. These regulations amend the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) Regulations 2020, which will henceforth be referred to as the face covering regulations.
The face covering regulations came into force on 24 July and made it mandatory for people to wear face coverings in some indoor settings, such as some shops, supermarkets and indoor transport hubs in England. The original face covering regulations were debated and approved by members of the Committee on 14 September. This debate will therefore not focus on the content of the original set of regulations but will deal with the subsequent amendments.
Amendments were made to face covering regulations on 8 August, 22 August and 28 August to extend the requirement to wear a face covering to a wider list of indoor settings, to make clear that certain persons are exempt and to change the penalty structure for these regulations. I urge the Committee to approve these amending statutory instruments so that we may continue to use these powers to enhance protections for those visiting indoor spaces and minimise the risk of spreading the infection.
Amendments to the face covering regulations were necessary to ensure that this legislation tracked with the easement of lockdown restrictions and the reopening of further indoor premises, in order to offer the maximum protection to members of the public. These regulations are a necessary response to the serious and imminent threat to public health posed by the spread of coronavirus —covid-19—which is why they were brought into effect under the emergency procedure approved by Parliament for such measures. It is important that the Committee is able to scrutinise these amending regulations through this debate, which is taking place within the statutory 28 sitting days of the regulations coming into force.
This country has been and is still engaged in a national effort to beat the coronavirus, thanks to the hard work and sacrifice of the British people. Informed by the science, this progress has allowed us to cautiously ease lockdown restrictions, allowing sections of the economy, such as the retail and hospitality sector, to open. Colleagues will be aware that we introduced the original face covering regulations to coincide with the easement of some restrictions, to give members of the public greater confidence to visit public indoor spaces and to enhance protection for those working in these settings, as explained by the Secretary of State when he addressed Parliament on 14 July and announced these measures.
As I mentioned earlier, the face covering regulations, as originally made, were debated and approved by the Committee last week. The Government have continually reviewed and refined advice on face coverings. Prior to the face covering regulations coming into force, the Government had already been advising the wearing of face coverings in enclosed spaces where people might find it difficult to maintain social distance and might come into contact with others whom they would not usually meet.
Furthermore, face coverings have been mandatory on public transport in England since 15 June. Although face coverings are not a substitute for social distancing and good hand hygiene, the scientific evidence suggests that, when used correctly, they may have some benefit in reducing the likelihood of those with the infection, particularly if they are asymptomatic, passing it on to others.
On 31 July, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced that the Government would mandate the use of face coverings in further indoor settings such as museums and galleries, cinemas, places of worship and other indoor settings outlined in the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020—SI 2020, No. 839—and supporting guidance. That was done to reflect the easement of further restrictions as more places were reopening to the public. Footfall in those places was increasing, and face coverings can offer additional protection measures to those visiting such spaces.
Subsequent amendments to the regulations offer additional clarity on exemptions and reasonable excuses and update the penalty structure to discourage non-compliance and to deter repeat offending. I will outline the purpose of each amending instrument to the face coverings regulations and then set out the policies and processes underlying their development, implementation, monitoring and review.
The amending regulations that came into force on 8 August increase the scope of the face coverings regulations by widening the number of premises where face coverings must be worn, reflecting the easement of some lockdown restrictions and the fact that more people would be visiting those places. The amendments include additional indoor places and remove some of the exemptions from the definition of a shop. The result of the amendment is that members of the public must wear face coverings in indoor places such as museums, galleries, cinemas, places of worship, beauty salons and other spaces, unless they are exempt or have a reasonable excuse not to do so. More information on the settings covered can be found in the regulations’ explanatory documents and supporting guidance. No amendment was made to the persons exempt from the face coverings regulations, to the list of reasonable excuses or to any other legislation in force. However, some minor typographical amendments were made to the regulations—for example, renumbering the schedules for clarity.
The second set of amending regulations came into force on 22 August and included further premises brought into the scope of the face coverings regulations—namely, casinos, members’ clubs, social clubs and conference centres. To ensure that there is no doubt that the face coverings regulations only cover indoor premises, the amending regulations also update the definition of “relevant places” to make it explicit that face coverings are required only in indoor premises.
These amending regulations also remove certain exemptions from the definition of a shop that are listed in schedule 2—for example, premises for indoor sports and leisure activities. Consequently, these regulations introduced an exemption for elite sportspersons, the coach of an elite sportsperson, referees, professional dancers and professional choreographers, from the requirement to wear a face covering where they are acting in the course of their employment, training or undertaking a competition at relevant places that are in the scope of the regulations. In addition, given that the face coverings regulations were amended to include indoor places of worship as a result of SI 2020 No. 839, these amending regulations insert an additional exemption into regulation 3 to exempt pupils under the age of 19 at a religious school from the need to wear a face covering when undertaking education or training within a place of worship as part of the curriculum of a religious school.
The amending regulations that came into force on 28 August amended the penalty structure, to discourage non-compliance and to deter repeat offending. The original face coverings regulations stipulated that a penalty notice of £100 could be issued to someone over the age of 18 who was in breach of those regulations and that that would be halved to £50 if paid within 14 days. The amending regulations insert a laddering fine structure into the face coverings regulations, so that the fine payable for the second and subsequent breaches of those regulations, or of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings on Public Transport) (England) Regulations 2020, doubles for each occasion, up to a maximum of £3,200, with no discount for early payment from the second fine. That is in line with enforcement provisions in other coronavirus regulations. The amendment does not make any change to those who have powers to enforce the policy.
Although the vast majority of people have complied with rules throughout the pandemic, and enforcement measures remain a last resort, these amendments will further deter non-compliance and tackle those who repeatedly breach the requirement to wear a face covering. It is important that we all continue to play our part in reducing the risk of transmitting the infection as we visit indoor places.
I would like to be absolutely clear that, although we want as many people as possible to wear a face covering, we recognise that some people are not able to wear one for a variety of reasons. The amending regulations do not remove or make changes to the list of exemptions or reasonable excuses beyond those additions I have already described.
The face covering regulations include a review clause, requiring a review of the need for the requirements, as amended, at six months. A sunset clause is included so that face covering regulations expire 12 months after the day they came into force. We will continue to monitor the impact and effectiveness of this policy in the weeks and months ahead, and we will develop our approach to enforcement and to communicating the policy as necessary.
I am grateful to all hon. Members for their continued engagement in this challenging process and in scrutiny of the regulations. We will, of course, reflect on the issues in the debate to come. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford.
I thank the Minister for her detailed introduction. As she rightly pointed out, today we are debating amendment No. 2 to the original regulations on face coverings, which we debated only a week ago, and the amendment to the regulations on the wearing of face coverings in a relevant place and on public transport.
The first amendment to the face covering regulations, which, as we heard, came into force on 8 August, required the wearing of face coverings in additional indoor premises to those listed previously. It added indoor places of worship, crematoria and burial grounds, chapels and museums, galleries, cinemas, public libraries, public spaces in hotels, such as lobby areas, and community centres to the list of relevant places.
On the face of it—if you will pardon the pun, Mr Efford—those are all indoor settings that are not fundamentally different in character from those covered by the initial set of regulations. I would be grateful if the Minister set out why, in those circumstances, an amendment was necessary. Was it that the scientific advice changed between July and August about the places where face coverings would be effective, or was it simply that those places were an oversight in the first set of regulations?
The regulations also list the premises exempted from the definition of “shop”, including premises offering certain medical services, gyms and photography studios, and add premises that were previously exempt from the definition of a shop as relevant places where face coverings must be worn, unless an exemption or reasonable excuse applies. Those include places such as nail, beauty and hair salons and barbers, tattooists, piercing parlours, massage parlours, storage and distribution centres, auction houses, spas, funeral directors, veterinary practices, premises providing professional services including legal and financial services, theatres, casinos, nightclubs, dance halls, conference and exhibition centres, bowling alleys, amusement arcades, indoor soft play areas, skating rinks or other indoor recreation activity premises. Again, I would be grateful if the Minister set out the rationale for the changes to the definitions in what would appear to be a very short period of time.
The amendment (No. 2) regulations, which came into force on 22 August, added further indoor premises where face coverings must be worn, including casinos, members’ clubs, social clubs and conference centres, and removed premises that were previously exempt, meaning that face coverings must also be worn in funfairs, theme parks or other premises for indoor sports, leisure or adventure activities. The regulations also added further examples of circumstances in which a person would be exempt from wearing a face covering in the relevant places, including for elite sportspersons, the coach of an elite sportsperson, referees, and professional dancers and choreographers when they are either acting in the course of their employment, training or undertaking competition, and for pupils at religious schools who are under the age of 19 and are undertaking educational training in a place of worship as part of the curriculum.
Finally, the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place and on Public Transport) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020, which came into force on 28 August, amended the penalty amounts for fixed penalty notices issued under the legislation that governs the wearing of face coverings on public transport and in relevant places. As we have heard, this means that the penalty for a first offence remains at £100, reduced to £50 if paid within 14 days. For each additional breach of the face covering regulations on public transport and in relevant places, the fixed penalty notice amount now doubles, up to a maximum of £3,200—a system that is now known as laddering.
The regulations also provide that fixed penalty notices issued before this approach was implemented will not be included in the laddering. For people who received a fixed penalty notice before 28 August, the first fixed penalty notice issued after that date will be for £200. Each subsequent fixed penalty notice will double in cost, up to a maximum of £3,200. All subsequent fixed penalty notices issued after the £3,200 limit has been reached will be levied at £3,200, and any discounts for early payments will not apply to fixed penalty notices issued for £200 and above. I very much doubt that anyone has yet been issued with the maximum fixed penalty notice of £3,200, but I would be grateful if the Minister set out whether anyone has reached the top of the ladder—or escalator, as it might well be called.
I want to make it clear, as I did during the debate last week on the initial regulations, that the Opposition support these SIs. We all have our part to play in beating this virus. It is important that we all follow the advice to wear a mask, unless someone is exempt. As we know, that is important not just for keeping each of us safe, but to ensure that people can go about their livelihoods as much as possible.
As cases begin to rise again, people are concerned about what the winter holds for them and their families. With the sharp rise in coronavirus cases and the difficulties that people across the country are facing in getting a test, there is mounting concern that we do not have the virus sufficiently under control. There is no doubt that Professor Chris Whitty and Sir Patrick Vallance gave an extremely sobering message this morning about the challenge we face over the coming months.
The Opposition will support the SIs because they will help limit the transmission of the virus, but it is also important that this place plays its role in scrutinising the legislation, which is why we are having this debate. I want to raise a number of issues, starting with the timing of the regulations. Since 11 May, the Government have been advising the public to wear face coverings in enclosed spaces where they might find it difficult to maintain social distancing and might come into contact with people whom they would not normally meet, yet face coverings became mandatory on public transport in England only on 15 June, in shops and transport hubs on 24 July, and in the other relevant places covered by the regulations on 8 and 22 August.
The question of why there was such a delay between the Government’s recommending their use and mandating their use featured heavily in the debate on the wearing of face covering regulations last Monday, more than seven weeks after they originally came into effect on 24 July. As the Minister will no doubt recall, I asked her at the time whether she could explain why there was such a delay between the Government’s advising people to wear masks on 11 May and the introduction of the wearing of face coverings regulations on 24 July—a period of some two and a half months. The Minister responded not in the debate but in subsequent correspondence, and I am grateful to her for her reply. I would have been even more grateful if I was satisfied with the answer I had; unfortunately, that has not proved to be the case.
In a letter to me, the Minister says:
“Our advice from the Deputy Chief Medical Officers is that evidence is limited but suggests that face coverings may have some benefit in reducing the likelihood of someone with the infection passing it on to others, particularly if asymptomatic disease is common, which is now established for the novel coronavirus.”
That is something that we all understand and accept—hence we are not opposing the regulations—but it does not really explain the reason for the delay in making it mandatory, although the Minister goes on to say in her written response to me:
“The Government reflected on how the public had responded to the guidance to wear face coverings in enclosed spaces.”
Again, it is not in dispute that the Government would have reflected on this, but we do not know what those reflections uncovered or why it was determined that regulations were required. The letter continues:
“As lockdown restrictions began to ease across the country, we felt it necessary to mandate the use of face covering in some indoor settings such as shops, supermarkets and indoor transport hubs. As shops reopened, we anticipated an increase in footfall and introduced these measures to provide some reassurance to people and help them benefit from some small additional protection that face coverings can offer when it is not always possible to socially distance. Nevertheless, social distancing and hand hygiene remain the most important way to control the virus.”
I think that that articulates rather better the Government’s thought processes, although it is to be noted that their position is that social distancing and hand hygiene remain the most important weapons against coronavirus; however, neither of those measures has become compulsory. It may be that it has been deemed, on balance, that they are too difficult to enforce in any meaningful way, but if the Minister could add anything on that point I would be grateful.
I have a couple of quibbles with the explanation. It talks about shops reopening, but of course supermarkets have remained open throughout, so I am not sure how that can be part of the reason for the delay. Although some shops were closed in the lockdown, most were reopening by early June and all non-essential retail was back open by 15 June. On that basis, the regulations should have come into force by that date—not five weeks later. Given that the Government’s own explanatory memorandum states that mandating the use of face coverings in a range of public indoor settings offers a reasonable protective measure to reduce the risk of infection on contamination by the virus, why was there a delay? Why not introduce the measures more uniformly across indoor settings in the case of shops when they reopened, instead of five weeks later? In the case of other settings, why do it in stages over the period of a month, causing confusion over when they were or were not required? As Members of this House and the other place have rightly said, the delays have not only fuelled confusion over where people should wear face coverings; they have caused people to lose trust in the Government’s message and, sadly, to stop following their advice.
That brings me to another issue, which is that conflicting advice and confusing statements from Government are not helpful in the fight against the coronavirus. If we want people to understand the rules and follow them, we need clear communication from the Government and the rules need to make sense.There is a struggle to understand, at times, why the rules still apply only to some people and not others. Will the Minister explain why, for example, the regulations do not apply to those who are actually working in shops, transport hubs and the other places where they apply? That was raised in the previous debate, but we did not get a satisfactory answer. Surely someone in a restaurant or pub serving members of the public is going to come into contact with large numbers of the public, so I wonder why it is not a requirement that they wear a face covering.
It is correct that many retail environments have put up screens to ensure that their checkout staff are protected, but many staff are of course engaged in other activities around the store, such as stacking shelves, often when members of the public are walking past. What is the difference between someone in that situation spending a significant amount of time in the aisles, and someone who is shopping there as a member of the public?
The last time the Committee met I also did not get a satisfactory answer about schools. It is notable that in the incredibly long list of indoor places where people gather and might find it difficult to socially distance, schools, colleges and universities barely get a mention. The National Education Union was right to say that the “slow” and “incoherent” way in which the decision was reached would not inspire confidence from parents or teachers. We are aware of the confusion caused by the Government’s 11th-hour U-turn about requiring secondary school pupils to wear face coverings in school corridors in local lockdown areas in England—an announcement made just days before schools returned. Of course that makes little sense to a pupil who lives in a local lockdown area but who is educated in an area that is not under lockdown, and who therefore is not subject to the same requirements.
Current guidance means that it is school leaders who have to make individual decisions about the use of face coverings in their school. Not surprisingly, the National Association of Head Teachers has said that that approach is “neither helpful nor fair”. I for one have received emails from concerned parents asking why the wearing of masks in schools is not compulsory. I understand their concerns when the country has about 75,000 teachers off, and 740 schools that are either wholly or partly closed because of the virus, and when teachers and pupils alike are unable to get tests.
As the general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers said, it was
“in no way unpredictable or surprising that the demand for Covid-19 tests would spike when schools reopened more widely this term”.
We certainly have been calling on the Government to take more action over the summer to prepare for the autumn.
Obviously, with increasing numbers of local authorities now facing lockdown restrictions that affect more than 13 million people, more areas face local restrictions, meaning that more pupils will be required, by default, to wear face coverings in communal areas. But what about other areas? It is widely acknowledged that we are now seeing a rise in cases all across the country, with the R rate estimated at being between 1.1 and 1.4.
The Opposition support the use of face coverings becoming compulsory in communal areas in secondary schools as a step towards reducing infection rates. In her response to the debate, I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why that is not being made mandatory and why instead we continue to see this variation across the country.
Also, what about universities? It has been reported that some universities require face coverings to be worn in all shared indoor spaces, while others do not. Again, the responsibility should not be placed on individual institutions. Local authorities are also rightly concerned about spikes in infection as universities return. Universities have been calling for clear national guidance on the use of face masks on campus to help reduce the spread of the virus. As many students have returned to university, will the Government or the regulator publish guidance calling for all universities to take that step?
On enforcement, as the explanatory memorandum notes, although the majority of the public have complied with the regulations, there is a minority who have not done so. We support measures against the very few people who are frequently and repeatedly breaking the rules that, of course, are there to protect us all.
As we have already discussed, the new premises cited in the amended regulations include casinos, members’ clubs, social clubs and conference centres. Putting aside for a minute the question of why they were added to the list so late on, I want to explore the inclusion of members’ clubs and social clubs in a little more detail.
There is no doubt that such clubs have been extremely hard-hit, like many other parts of the economy. In particular, the restrictions on large gatherings have affected their ability to hold functions, which for so many of them represent the difference between their making a profit or a loss. However, something perplexes me somewhat—what is the fundamentally different element between what I would generically describe as a social club and a pub? What is the difference? I do not know how often the Minister frequents either of these types of establishment—
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Could it not be argued that a social club has more control over who is inside the club? Unlike a pub or a bar, where anyone can walk in, in a registered social club people have to be members or signed in, so there is proof of who is there. Does my hon. Friend agree that social clubs have more control than a pub over who is actually in their space?
Justin Madders
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course, it was the case until fairly recently that there was no legal requirement on pubs to take test and trace details, so they were in a very different position from social clubs.
However, the main thing that perplexes me is that if we look at the layout, the function and the activity of pubs and social clubs, they seem to be extremely similar. Can the Minister explain from either a political or scientific perspective why they are being treated differently for the purposes of these regulations?
It has been said that these regulations play an important role in giving people the confidence to travel, to return to the workplace and to frequent the retail and the hospitality sector. However, for that confidence to be in place, we need the enforcement regime to be universal and rigorous, and at the moment that does not appear to be the case.
The latest figures that we have for public transport show that between the regulations being introduced, which was on 15 June, and 20 August, there were 115,423 interventions to remind passengers to wear face coverings, with at least 365 fixed penalty notices issued. However, we also know that by 20 August only eight fixed penalty notices had been issued under the relevant place regulations, but if the Minister can update us on that today I would be grateful.
Even allowing for the time difference between introducing the regulations for public transport and transport hubs, one has to wonder why there is such a disparity between those figures. They suggest that people are more compliant in transport hubs and retail spaces than they are on public transport, but frankly that is unlikely. Alternatively, is it more likely that the disparity can be explained by the lack of enforcement in transport hubs and shops? Can the Minister confirm if that is the case and can she also confirm what is being done to ensure compliance?
As several Members said in the previous debate, we need clarity on how these requirements will be enforced. What we are hearing across the country is that they are not being enforced as effectively as they could be. The legal requirement to wear a face covering when using public transport was introduced in June, and then in shops the following month, but it was clear that the police did not see it as their role to enforce that requirement
I wonder whether the high level of interventions taking place on public transport are mainly in London. The Minister will recall how we discussed during the last debate the fact that Transport for London staff were specifically mentioned in the regulations. As I know from my own constituency, however, little enforcement is happening on public transport. I have had multiple constituents complaining that when they go on buses and trains, some travellers seem to be able to travel without face coverings, and are not being challenged. Despite the regulations providing very broad powers to a wide range of people, it is still not clear who those people are, and whether bus or rail companies have the powers they need to enforce the regulations, despite their staff being an obvious choice.
We have the same unanswered questions about the retail sector, which faces similar problems with enforcement. Just as bus companies are reluctant to ask their bus drivers to enforce the rule, many of the major supermarkets are not asking their staff to police it, relying instead on encouraging shoppers to play their part through signs and public address announcements in store. Regarding enforcement numbers, it would be interesting to know how many of the fines or fixed penalty notices that have been issued so far related to transgressions in retail environments.
We know from a shopworkers’ survey carried out last month by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers that 75% of shopworkers have been abused by customers who were asked to socially distance, and almost half had experienced abuse as a result of asking shoppers to wear face masks. In that circumstance, it is not surprising that shop staff are reluctant to carry out that role. Nobody should face abuse for asking people to comply with public health measures, and such reprehensible behaviour by members of the public should not go unpunished.
The Minister has quoted a figure of 96% compliance with the wearing of face coverings in shops. I wonder if she could explain the nature of that survey: was it simply asking people whether they had complied with the regulations, or was it based on observation? I should imagine that most people contacted by a polling company and asked whether they intend to comply with the law would answer that they did—who wouldn’t? Four percent, possibly, but from my own observations, I suspect that the compliance rates are rather lower. Next time Members visit their local shops, I urge them to have a look around and see for themselves whether there is an issue of compliance and enforcement.
In July, the Prime Minister increased the pressure on the police to uphold face mask laws, seemingly at odds with the Police Federation, which described the task as “impossible”. Does the Minister agree with that description? If not, would she at least accept that the low number of fixed penalty notices may indicate a problem with enforcement?
Listening to those who represent the people on the frontline is important. With the rule of six and the new legal requirement to self-isolate, the number of enforceable restrictions is increasing. I was concerned to read, in a response to a written ministerial question I received last week, that no physical checks are currently being carried out on people who are requested to isolate. Presumably, if fines are now to be issued to those who break quarantine, there must be some kind of enforcement to make that effective. There are very real pressures on the police, due to the reduction in their numbers over the past decade, and they simply cannot continue to be handed responsibilities if those responsibilities are not accompanied by sufficient resources to enable them to do their job. We need answers that have not been forthcoming to date. Will the Minister set out what resources have been handed to the police to ensure these measures are complied with?
Despite media reports that covid marshals are already operating in the streets, we still have not got to the bottom of who they are, what their role is, or how they will be resourced. We do know that council leaders have expressed concerns that they are not able to resource them, following a decade of cuts; of course, councils are already facing significant, multi-million-pound shortfalls in their finances this year. The Minister was unable to answer questions in Committee last week, and the concern is that despite the emphasis the Prime Minister has placed on them, the scope of covid marshals will turn out to be disproportionate to the reality of what is happening on the streets.
When the Minister responds, will she be able to confirm whether covid marshals will be required to enforce the wearing of face coverings in relevant places, on public transport, or both? If that is the case, how will they be funded, and how will this be communicated? It is important that people know not only that their actions can be subject to enforcement, but by whom.
For there to be public confidence in the rules, adherence to them and compliance with their enforcement, it is vital that everyone understands who has the power to enforce them. Uncertainty about that will only create friction, tension, and greater uncertainty.We need absolutely crystal clarity from the Government about who is able to enforce these rules and the circumstances in which they are able to do so.
The Chair
Order. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that the marshals are not within the scope of the orders. He should move back on to the subject.
Justin Madders
Unfortunately, we are not actually sure whether they are or not within the scope following the debate last week.
Justin Madders
No doubt the Minister can answer the questions raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham and by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) last week on whether the wide enforcement powers created by the original regulations, the amendments to which we are discussing, were intended to cover face coverings as well.
Mr Jones
It is not clear; we have not been given a list of people who can actually enforce these powers. The regulations are relevant to marshals if marshals are given the powers and included in the list. We do not know whether marshals are in the list of individuals to whom the Secretary of State could give powers.
Justin Madders
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I hope that we finally get some clarity on that today.
I again raise the Opposition’s concerns about the way these regulations have been brought in, and the delayed scrutiny and debate of them. Many points and questions I and other Members have raised should not be being heard weeks after the regulations came into force. Although the amendments to the regulations on the wearing of face coverings were laid during the summer recess, as I raised earlier, had the initial regulations been debated in a timelier manner, perhaps that situation could have been avoided altogether. As the Minister will be aware, the Opposition have repeatedly called for regulations to be debated before they come into force. I have raised the issue of new regulations being introduced and not debated until weeks later on every occasion that we have discussed coronavirus regulations, yet it still happens every time we debate a new statutory instrument.
Despite the Government’s own acknowledgement that they are aware of Parliament’s concerns about allowing for the timely scrutiny of regulations, particularly in relation to the timing of debates, we are once again debating regulations weeks after the event. I note that we are perhaps debating these regulations rather more promptly than the previous face covering regulations, and that the Government have scheduled 17 sets of regulations for debate this week, which will hopefully bring us a little bit more up to date. Of course, I have made it clear on numerous occasions that we accept that the initial coronavirus regulations had to be introduced hurriedly in response to the initial threat from rising numbers of infections from what was, at the time, a new and unknown disease, but we are no longer in that situation.
Each of these regulations contains the phrase at the start:
“the Secretary of State is of the opinion that, by reason of urgency, it is necessary to make this instrument without a draft having been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
I accept that, earlier on, that would have been the case, but that cannot really be said of these regulations. What is the urgency for these two sets of regulations to correct oversights and omissions from earlier regulations and other regulations increasing the level of fines for transgressions? Is it really the Government’s position that correcting their own mistakes is a good enough reason to override parliamentary scrutiny? What is the reason for the urgency in the increase in fines? As I say, we have no problem with the laddering proposals in these regulations, but what required them to be introduced before there was any debate?
I am concerned that the Government appear to be falling into a regrettable pattern of treating parliamentary scrutiny as an afterthought, relying on claims of urgency that are really not justified as Members on both sides of the House and in the other place have repeatedly expressed their desire for these debates to be held in a timelier way, to ensure full parliamentary scrutiny. Despite those multiple pleas and the Government’s assurances that they have listened to those concerns and are working hard to address the problem, it seems that every time we face new regulations, we still face a rubber-stamping exercise, weeks down the line.
These regulations are too important not to be debated and given full and timely parliamentary scrutiny before they become law. I make this plea as I have done on a number of occasions. The Government should be aware that we remain extremely concerned about the continuing contempt being shown for parliamentary scrutiny. They can and should make time to debate regulations before they become law.
We believe it is possible to arrange, through the usual channels, for these Committees to be set up at short notice, so that important regulations such as this are debated in a proper manner before they become law. I know that many on the Government Back Benches share that view, and I will of course clear my diary, if necessary, to ensure that the Opposition play our part in ensuring proper scrutiny of, and accountability for, such regulations. It seems likely there will be more regulations on their way. I hope we can debate those in the proper and orderly manner that it is this Parliament’s duty to do.
The Chair
Before I call Mr Jones, I remind the Committee that the measure is about the locations where masks should be worn; it is not about the empowerment of enforcement agents. Will Members remember that when they speak?
Mr Jones
I will not challenge you, Mr Efford, and I welcome you to the Chair today. We had a debate last week about enforcement and who could and could not enforce the regulations. The Minister promised to write to us last week with a long list of individuals, but we have still not got it.
Mr Jones
Well, I am sorry but I have not received it, and I do not think my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston has, either. The list would include people who could be designated by the Secretary of State. He could designate, for example, marshals, but I shall leave it there.
In terms of these regulations, my hon. Friend points out a growing trend with this Government: they seize emergency powers. We in Opposition support them because we saw back in March that clear action needed to be taken, but there has been no give and take in terms of trying to involve the Opposition or even Parliament in how the regulations are implemented.
My hon. Friend raises a very good point about the way in which the regulations have been introduced, because it raises a broader issue here. For these regulations to be effective, they have to have public buy-in. We are elected to this place to represent our constituents. We have seen over the past few weeks the utter confusion there is now about what people can and cannot do—added to that is the announcement of just half an hour ago. When the Secretary of State introduced the lockdown regulations for the north-east last week, he excluded any reference to childcare, so my inbox and that of everyone else in the north-east was inundated with people questioning whether they could take their grandchildren to school. I am glad to see that sense has been arrived at this afternoon and the clarification has been made, but that is one example, and these regulations will lead to more confusion, as I shall illustrate.
Again, these regulations have not been well thought through. First, we discussed last week how a relevant place is defined. The first regulation extends the number of places where a face mask is needed in what is deemed a relevant place. Before, it was shops, supermarkets, shopping centres, banks and post offices, but not included were restaurants that could provide table service to customers, bars, pubs or areas of a shop or shopping centre that provided for the consumption of food and drink, and seating areas in coffee shops, supermarkets, cafés and food courts. We discussed whether seating areas in transport hubs were covered, and I got clarification on that from the Minister this week.
The relevant places are then extended to include indoor places of worship, crematoria, burial ground chapels, museums, galleries, cinemas, public libraries, public spaces in hotels such as lobby areas of hotels, and community centres. I will come back to the issue of clubs in a minute. To me, this is not very clear. Many hotel lobbies, for example, have seating areas where people perhaps just want to sit and wait to be checked in, but many hotels have seating areas where someone can order a sandwich or a drink or another type of refreshment, so are those areas excluded? Occasionally, for example, I walk into the Radisson Blu hotel or the Royal County hotel in Durham and ask for a sandwich at the reception, and it is delivered to me as I sit in the reception area. Am I then exempt from wearing a face mask or not?
I will come on to community centres, and I am sure hon. Members will know of similar situations to mine. I have a number of very good community centres in my constituency that provide food, but not regularly. They have seating areas for luncheon clubs and various catered events. Under the definition in the regulations, the community centres should be excluded on the basis that they have seating areas and provide food. Do they actually have to provide food at that time? Are we saying that if they are providing food, people there do not have to wear face masks, or that if they are not providing food, people do have to wear face masks? Those are things that will be very confusing to local organisations. It would be interesting to know how that actually works.
Another issue is the definition of a place of worship. That is pretty simple in that a place of worship is a church, a synagogue, a mosque and so on, but increasing numbers of churches do not actually have fixed buildings. They meet in people’s houses as community churches. I have a number in my constituency, and I am sure that there are some in London as well. Are they covered under the rule of six? I imagine that there would be more than six people in those congregations. Are those houses covered as places of worship? For those individuals, that is what they are. We might not recognise them as traditional places of worship, but for their congregations, they are. Will those congregations have to wear face masks in the houses where they hold their services?
I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston about social clubs. Many of them were struggling before the pandemic as it was. Their membership tends to be elderly, so a lot of people will not be going to the clubs. They are no different from pubs, in my opinion—except that, importantly, the regulation around them is more strict because they know exactly who goes in, and there are disciplinary proceedings if things happen. Putting them at a disadvantage is wrong.
I now come to the question of wearing face coverings in nail bars, beauty and hair salons, barbers, tattoo and piercing parlours, massage parlours, storage and distribution centres, auction houses, spas, funeral directors, veterinary surgeons and so on. Based on these regulations, if the hon. Member for Aldershot goes into his barber or his hairdresser to have his locks coiffured, he will have to wear a face mask. I am aware that many women, as well as men—the hon. Gentleman included—have their hair washed when they go to their barber or salon. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman goes to a salon rather than a barber. Does the person have to wear the face mask while they are actually having their hair washed? That creates some very difficult problems, does it not?
I went my local barbers a few weeks ago, where I had a disposable gown put on me. To be fair to them, they were good at making sure that people socially distanced, and hygiene was very good. If we are asking people to wear a face mask when they go to a salon, including when they have their hair washed, that will be very difficult.
Mr Jones
The Minister says no, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Aldershot has a different view. Asking a person to wear a face mask when they have their hair washed will cause difficulty, because they will then be sitting in a salon with a damp or wet face mask on. What is the science as to how effective a face mask is if it is wet? I am not a scientist, and we do not have here my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), who last week actually went into the science of the way in which face masks work. Clearly, some of the more robust ones might stand up to that use. The one that I have with me may well do—I think it was washed yesterday by Mrs J—but I am sure, Mr Efford, that by the end of your salon appointment some of the more disposable ones would be floating around in the handbasin. Again, the issue is just the confusion that the measure causes.
The other issue is about fines. Clearly, No. 10’s strategy over the weekend was to sound tough on fines: “We are going to start fining people. If people don’t follow the rules, they are going to get fined.” [Interruption.] Does the Minister want to intervene?
Mr Jones
Was it wind?
The problem is that what No. 10 was saying might sound tough, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston said, how many people have actually been fined? The problem with these types of regulations is that they are confusing to people, so people are not going to be very clear about how they will be enforced. This does come down to enforcement—we had this discussion last week. I have no problem with a police officer or someone else—I think it was a community support officer under the regulations last week—giving out fixed penalty fines if they think that right. We asked for a definition last week of a TfL official, for example; they are not identified. We also asked another question, because in the regulations there is a long list of people and then there is a catch-all provision whereby it could be anyone whom the Secretary of State designates to give those fines. That is why my hon. Friend and I raised the issue about marshals. I do not want to go down that path and upset you in any way, Mr Efford, but if the Secretary of State actually gave local authority marshals the power to issue fines, I would find that very uncomfortable; I am quite happy if people have had training in dealing with these situations. We were offered a list last week, but I am still waiting for it.
This does matter, because we are now extending the regulations to other areas. I come now to my closing remarks, which are about the entire Government approach to this area. We are supposed to be seeing now a super-duper new communications centre at No. 10, but frankly, there is confusion outside the House and these provisions will add to it. The unintended consequences of some of the regulations that have been brought in lead to that confusion, and it is made worse by some Ministers who try to act tough in the way in which they put things over. It is important that we be able to communicate the position, and I do not think we can, with the way these provisions are structured. The Government have been remiss. We should have had more opportunities for debate. I am glad to now hear from Conservative Back Benchers the arguments for why we need more scrutiny of these things in Parliament, which would allow us, as representatives of the people, to have a say before they actually come forward.
Ms Dorries
There were an extensive number of questions from the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, but if he does not mind, I will first answer the questions from the hon. Member for North Durham.
Ms Dorries
Absolutely. I do apologise: he is right honourable—he will be “Sir” soon.
On face masks for hair washing, salon owners have a responsibility to their staff and themselves and to their customers to keep everyone safe. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot will not mind my saying that I am not quite as follicly challenged, and I had my own hair washed at the hairdressers two weeks ago and I wore my own mask. I will admit that the ties that went behind my ears got slightly damp, but there were no masks floating in sinks or anything like the other extravagant descriptions that the right hon. Member for North Durham provided us with about a day in the hairdressers. There were no problems whatever. I have yet to see anybody not wearing a mask walk into a hairdresser’s salon without their being given a mask by the staff there. It would be extraordinary if somebody had an appointment at a hairdresser’s salon and just walked in without wearing a mask. So, the answer is, “No—that is not a problem at all”.
Mr Jones
I accept the point the Minister is making, but until now there was no indication that people actually needed to wear a face mask. She talks about her own experience, but how, for example, would a hairdresser cut the hair of the hon. Member for Aldershot, or shave it round the sides, if he had a face mask on? Does that not make it very difficult?
Ms Dorries
The tie on a face mask is close to the skin; it is not worn in the hair. It is worn like a hearing aid—around the skin.
Ms Dorries
I literally cannot go into the ins and outs of a hairdresser’s means and ways of cutting somebody’s hair, Mr Efford; all I will say is that we have had no complaints.
The right hon. Gentleman raised the issue of worship in homes—the answer is a very blunt no. Houses are not covered. He also mentioned hotels and hotel foyers. Again, if there is a bar or a café inside the hotel, or wherever one may be, then one is allowed not to wear a mask.
Ms Dorries
I will ask for an answer on that one. I would imagine that if it were in an environment where food was normally served in a hotel, it would not have to be open, although I will wait for a definite answer.
However, I would challenge the right hon. Gentleman—and I will answer a question asked by him and the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston during this debate about the figure of 96% of people wearing masks. That figure came from the Office for National Statistics. It was not a case of what the right hon. Gentleman suggested, but with the ONS—people were actually just answering a survey. All the people here have been going around shops and hairdressers, and it is hard to go anywhere in a public space and find anyone who is not wearing a mask. However, I have asked for an answer about whether a bar has to be open, and I will ensure that the right hon. Gentleman receives it.
As for community centres—[Interruption.] Sorry, I thought the right hon. Gentleman mentioned social clubs.
Mr Jones
No, I just mentioned community centres. Many community centres have facilities for providing food, but do not provide it on some days, for example. On the days when they do not serve food, will people have to wear face masks, or will people be exempt only when they are actually serving food?
Ms Dorries
Again, a community centre will be run by people who are responsible, and have responsibility for their staff and the people in the community centre. Any community centre would have a policy that people should wear masks. But again, I will get back to the right hon. Gentleman on that particular point.
Mr Jones
If a luncheon club is going on and the Minister is saying that people have to wear face masks, it gets down to the point about leaving it to the actual local people to decide. That is not the regulation. It needs clarifying, so they can say, “Fine. If we’re providing food, then people don’t need to. Clearly, if we don’t, or have some other event on and food is not included, then they may have to comply.”
Ms Dorries
As I said, Mr Efford, I will revert to the right hon. Gentleman with an answer to that particular point.
On the substantive points raised by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, he raised one overarching question a couple of times in his speech, namely why, if we made the guidance on 11 May, we did not introduce it officially until after that date. That is for two reasons. First, the science on wearing masks was evolving, and evidence was coming in from China, Lombardy and other places where masks were being worn, or not, and where studies were taking place on the efficacy of masks in prohibiting the spread of the virus.
Secondly, at the same time, we began to ease restrictions, and as we eased the restrictions we saw an increase in footfall. It was necessary to bring in the regulations because we were easing the restrictions, and the public were coming out on to the streets and into the areas where we were doing so. However, as I have said before, we have seen huge compliance from the public.
The right hon. Member for North Durham did not mention that I was incredibly generous in engaging with him last week on the points that he made about covid marshals. They are out—I was hoping for a nod from the Chair—
Ms Dorries
I will not take any more interventions, and we will now move on. Covid marshals will be subject to their own SI shortly, but this Committee is about three SIs on face coverings. I will keep to the point of face coverings, which is what I am here to address. I am not here to debate an SI on covid marshals.
I have set out why we felt it necessary to do as we did after the guidance. We were also receiving information that people were happy with wearing face coverings, and, from public compliance and people wanting to keep themselves safe, it was obviously the right thing to do at that time.
Justin Madders
The Minister is absolutely right to say that she has been generous in taking interventions, both today and on previous occasions. I want to try to understand what she has said about the delay. She has talked about the science evolving, and of course we accept that. However, virtually all retail was open by mid-June, and yet the regulations did not come in until 24 July. I am trying to understand why there was such a delay between those two dates.
Ms Dorries
I revert to the substantive point: we were constantly easing regulations at the same time as we had issues to do with Leicester. We had areas in the country where rates were rising at the same time as we had national easement. It is very complex, but at the time it was felt that the public had complied and were wearing masks to go into shops and public places. However, we felt it was important, as footfall increased and we had spikes in other parts of the country, that we introduce guidance nationally for people to wear masks.
I will answer some of the shorter points that the hon. Gentleman raised. He asked me how many people had received FPNs: it is eight to date. I am not aware of what fines were charged, and whether they were on the ladder or went up to the full amount, but eight FPNs have issued so far. I was also asked why we are not legislating for handwashing.
Ms Dorries
No. It is incredibly difficult to legislate for people to wash their hands. However, given how compliant and how willing the public have been to wear face coverings—we only have to see how many people are carrying hand sanitisers, and how responsible and conscientious the public have been—I am not sure there will ever be any need to legislate for handwashing. That would be an incredibly difficult piece of legislation, and I am sure the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston agrees that that is not where we want to go.
The hon. Gentleman brought up the question of staff in various areas. I go back to my previous answer to the right hon. Member for North Durham: it is not compulsory for shop or supermarket staff to wear face coverings, although we strongly recommend that employers consider their obligations, where appropriate and where mitigations are not in place. It is also important to mention that the list of where to wear face coverings and where the exemptions apply is not exhaustive; it is something that is reviewed almost daily. We listen to representations from Members on both sides of the House, and from organisations and individuals, about where they think the exemptions should apply, and what else should be included in the list. This is a constantly moving feast. The fact that we are here today is not the end of it—the process will continue. Businesses are already subject to legal obligations to protect their staff, so a safe working environment is what we expect of everywhere where staff are employed and where members of the public come on to the premises.
The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston mentioned face coverings in schools. I will mention universities as well; I know that his son has gone back to university this week. The Department for Education has updated its guidance recently on wearing face coverings in schools, following, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, the World Health Organisation’s statement about children over the age of 12. However, the Government’s absolute priority is to get children back to school and keep them in school.
The Department’s guidance sets out that face coverings should be worn by staff, by visitors and by pupils when moving around the school. They should be worn in further and higher education settings indoors, such as in corridors and communal areas where social distancing cannot be maintained. However, as we discussed last week, obviously that does not apply when people are eating, because it is difficult to eat with a mask on—it is not practical. Schools are not included in the regulations before the Committee, with the exception of an exemption for pupils of religious schools receiving educational provision in a place of worship.
It is important that university students can start the new term and the campuses can remain open. Again, education is an absolute priority, and it is also an important thing for students’ mental health and wellbeing. It is important that these things are done safely and we have been working closely with universities, and the sector, to help them to prepare for their intake of students, which, as Members know, is staggered from the beginning of September to almost the end of October, depending on where the university is, and which years are going back there.
Universities have introduced a number of measures such as staggered term times and staggered returns. There have been some assertive information notices across universities, such as “Don’t kill your nan”, and requirements about where students should wear face coverings. We have helped universities to make campuses safe by reiterating the face covering message throughout to students, including where they should wear them. Again, there is an impression that students will completely disregard all the social distancing regulations. I am not saying that they will be perfect, but universities have stepped up to the plate and are doing their bit. I am not sure which universities are providing disposable face coverings, but I think that the message about what students should be doing will be put out strongly to them.
The Government’s aim, with all the regulations and all that we are doing about face coverings, is to achieve as high a compliance rate as possible. We are incredibly impressed with the public’s response and the compliance so far.
Justin Madders
Will the Minister say a little about the distinctions between pubs and social clubs? As I and my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham have explained, that is an important issue for our constituencies, and we want to understand that distinction.
Ms Dorries
I believe that social clubs were part of the original discussion. I shall find out why they were not included. I cannot guarantee that I will be able to write to the hon. Gentleman about that tomorrow, as before, but I apologise and I shall get back to him and provide an answer.
The Government have always been clear that the highest priority in managing this national crisis is protecting our public and saving lives. Face coverings and public compliance in wearing them is a part of that endeavour. I am satisfied that the additional premises included in the amending regulations are necessary, reasonable and proportionate. The amending regulations offer further clarity for members of the public on where they should wear a face covering, exempt further categories of person and update the penalty structure to maximise compliance with the policy. Our guidance has consistently set out to the public that, to protect themselves, they must continue to follow social distancing measures, wash hands regularly, adhere to the isolation guidance and wear face coverings where appropriate. The current guidance from the Government states that people should also wear a face covering in enclosed public spaces, where social distancing is more difficult to maintain and where people might come into contact with others whom they do not normally meet.
Today has provided an opportunity for the Government to hear people’s concerns through the contributions made during the debate. Parliamentary scrutiny is a vital part of the regulation-making process, and I am pleased to have been able to set out the content of the regulations to the Committee. I hope that the Committee has found the debate informative and that it will join me in supporting these amending regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 839).
The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 882).—(Nadine Dorries.)
The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place and on Public Transport) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place and on Public Transport) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 906).—(Nadine Dorries.)
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford) Regulations 2020
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford) (Amendment) Regulations 2020
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 822).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 898), the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 930) and the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 935).
Edward Argar
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. These regulations are on the Order Paper in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. As you have indicated, I will also deal with three other sets of regulations, all of which relate to the original statutory instrument.
The regulations that we are discussing today, made under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, came into force originally on 1 August. At the end of July, the Secretary of State announced that restrictions already in place to tackle the outbreak of coronavirus in Blackburn with Darwen needed to remain in place, and that due to increased transmission of covid-19 in the City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council area, the restrictions should apply there too.
However, the epidemiological data at that time allowed my right hon. Friend to agree to removing the restrictions previously in place in Luton. Therefore, the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Luton) Regulations 2020 were revoked and the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford) Regulations 2020 were made in their place. That meant that certain businesses were not allowed to open and gatherings of more than 30 people in private homes or outdoor public spaces were prohibited in those two local authority areas.
These regulations were reviewed regularly, as required, and since then the amending statutory instruments that we are also debating today have been made, coming into force as follows: S.I. 2020/898 on 26 August, S.I. 2020/930 on 2 September and S.I. 2020/935 on 3 September. On Wednesday 26 August, further amendments were made, reflecting a fall in incidence rates in certain parts of Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council’s area, justifying the relaxation of restrictions in those wards. Consequently, the regulations were amended to cover only specified wards in the Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council area as well as the City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council area, allowing those wards where the incidence rate was lower to come back into line with the ongoing national picture and national restrictions.
A similar review took place the following week, and there was evidence that the incidence rate in parts of the City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council area had fallen, so the Secretary of State again decided that it was appropriate to remove certain wards from the regulations. On Wednesday 2 September, the protected area was amended by specifying the remaining wards in Bradford where the restrictions needed to remain in force—those where the incidence rates continued to be unacceptably high. The amendment that came into force the next day, 3 September, corrected an omission, in the previous one, to remove one further ward from the Bradford protected area.
The concern about the outbreaks in Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford has been significant, and engagement with local leaders has been extensive, repeated and productive. I place on the record my thanks to the local authorities, local councillors, the local resilience forum, public health officials and the joint biosecurity centre for all their work in relation to the regulations and subsequent reviews. Like many colleagues in the House, I had the privilege of serving for many years as a local councillor before entering the House, and I think it important that we recognise the role that many local councillors and local councils across the country are undertaking at this time, in very difficult circumstances. I recognise that with our thanks.
I emphasise that the decision to take action on each occasion was not driven by numbers alone; it was a scientific judgment about the overall situation. The numbers were as follows: on 1 August, the rate in Blackburn with Darwen was over 70 per 100,000 people; by 26 August, it had fallen to 52 per 100,000 people; and by 2 September, it had fallen again to 48 per 100,000. Similarly, on 1 August the rate in Bradford was around 47 per 100,000, falling back to around 44 per 100,000 by 26 August, and remaining steady in the following week. However, those advising the Secretary of State and local public health officials also took account of the overall situation, including local insight and knowledge, in addition to the raw epidemiological data.
Action had already been taken to protect people living in Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford in the weeks before these regulations came into force, such as increases in testing and public health capacity. We also gave additional funding to the upper-tier local authorities involved, enabling them to enhance the various local interventions and to support the measures put in place. It was hoped that those interventions and the work of the local Public Health England teams and other local teams would get the infection rate down without our having to take more drastic action. Regrettably, however, the rate remained unacceptably high, so we needed to impose restrictions to reduce the risk of transmission.
In general, these regulations maintain business closures in the protected areas as they were nationally before the relaxations on 25 July. At that time, the national incidence rate had fallen to a sufficiently low level for it to be agreed that more close-contact businesses and services could reopen. However, as I have already set out, the epidemiological data and understanding of the outbreaks occurring in Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford did not support the removal of those restrictions in either place.
Given the urgency of the situation in both locations, we used the emergency procedure in the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 to make the present set of regulations as soon as we could. They give effect to the decisions of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. In particular, regulation 3 required the following businesses to close, in addition to those required to close by the remaining national restrictions: casinos; indoor skating rinks; indoor swimming pools and water parks; indoor play areas; indoor fitness and dance studios; indoor gyms and sports courts; bowling alleys; and conference centres and exhibition halls. Regulation 4 restricted gatherings to no more than 30 people, whether in private gardens or outdoor public spaces.
These regulations must be reviewed at least every 14 days, to consider the need for the restrictions to continue. Following such reviews, the Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford regulations were amended, as I have already mentioned, on 26 August, and on 2 and 3 September, reducing the remit of the protected area each time so that the restrictions applied only to wards within the Blackburn with Darwen and City of Bradford areas where the incidence rates remained unacceptably high, allowing targeting of the restrictions. Regulations 5 to 9 in the original statutory instrument set out how the provisions will be enforced, making it a criminal offence to breach either the requirement for certain businesses to remain closed or the ban on gatherings of more than 30 people.
As with the national regulations, those who breach the regulations can be issued with fixed penalty notices, with increasing amounts to be paid by repeat offenders or those fined following conviction. To assist everyone living in Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford who is or was affected by the regulations, we published guidance on the www.gov.uk website, clarifying what they can and cannot do.
Since these regulations and their amendments have been implemented, the Government have continued to monitor and review the ongoing situation. In fact, the incidence rates in both local authority areas have risen recently across most wards. The incidence rate for the seven days from 2 September to 8 September in Blackburn with Darwen has now risen to over 100 per 100,000 people, and during the same period it also rose to over 100 per 100,000 people in Bradford.
We are debating only these four SIs today, but there have been regular reviews since they were made, considering the position in each local authority’s area. As I say, we remain concerned by the continued high level of the virus across the broader areas covered by the restrictions imposed by these regulations—driven primarily, it appears, by community transmission.
We always knew that the path out of the lockdown would not be entirely smooth. It was always likely, and it was always made clear, that infections would rise in particular areas or workplaces, and that we would need to be able to respond quickly and flexibly to such outbreaks. These restrictions have demonstrated our willingness and ability to take action where we need to. As has been the case throughout the pandemic, the Government have acted with speed in our response, moving rapidly to take the steps and action needed.
I suspect that members of the Committee—especially the hon. Member for Tooting, the shadow Minister—will wish to touch on the process by which the regulations are being scrutinised, and I will be happy to respond in my winding-up speech should she wish to do so.
We will, of course, use the experience of the restrictions in Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford to continuously inform and develop our responses to any future local outbreaks. This issue has been raised in previous delegated legislation Committees where similar regulations have been discussed, but we will make public the outcome of these latest and subsequent reviews in due course. I am grateful to all Members for their continued engagement in this challenging process, and for their scrutiny of the regulations. I reiterate my gratitude to not only the local councils, local authorities and public health teams, but to Members representing seats in the area, who, regardless of party, have all behaved throughout with the very best interests of their constituents at heart.
In particular, I want to thank the people of Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford who, after national restrictions, have endured a continued period of very challenging restrictions. I know what it can be like, both as a resident and as a Member of Parliament representing such areas: parts of my constituency outside Leicester were among the first to have local restrictions. I saw then the extraordinary resilience and determination of the people of my city and constituency, just as we are seeing it in those other areas. They endure some very difficult times, and it is right that we recognise their sacrifice in doing the right thing.
Although it is unfortunate that the restrictions cannot be lifted at present, it is thanks to people’s continued efforts that it has not been necessary at this point to impose more localised restrictions, although we have seen changes at a local level in other areas. I would highlight—I am sure I do not need to—the words of the chief scientific advisor and the chief medical officer today, which sound a warning for us all that we have to continue to focus on following the rules to suppress the virus. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I will start by saying that Labour Members will not oppose the regulations. Keeping people safe and preventing the spread of the virus remains the No. 1 priority, and Labour Members will always support regulations that aim to achieve that. It is important, however, to consider the impact that the regulations have already had and will continue to have on those living in Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford.
The national lockdown, necessary as it was, led to a period of social isolation unlike anything many of us have experienced before. The mental health impact has been profound, with rising levels of loneliness, depression and anxiety across the country as a whole. When the restrictions were slowly lifted, it was not only a relief for many of those struggling with their mental health, but a lifeline. Although targeted local lockdowns ensure that the difficulties experienced by individuals affected are not spread nationwide, that does not make their sacrifices any easier.
Mothers are having to give birth on their own. Within the regulations there is reference to circumstances whereby individuals can attend a person’s giving birth, but what has the reality been? Can the Minister tell me how many women locally have given birth on their own? Not being able to visit loved ones is not easy at the best of times. In a period of a public health crisis and economic uncertainty, with no real end in sight, the toll is significantly greater. That is why the people of Blackburn and Bradford need all the support that they can get from their Government. What additional resources are being offered to support the wellbeing of those in the affected wards?
People who rely on others for deliveries, shopping and care needs have been understandably worried. I completely understand that the specific set of restrictions imposed by these regulations was designed to avoid a more severe economic lockdown that could potentially create more problems than it solves. However, those decisions must be made in full partnership with local authority leaders and public health experts on the ground.
Communication is key if local lockdowns are to be effective. Will the Minister explain how the decision was made to restrict socialising, rather than economic activity, and outline how that was agreed with local leaders at the time? It would be useful to know how regular the communication with local leadership has been throughout the time when the regulations have been in place.
It is local people who need to abide by, enforce and live with the regulations; they cannot be sidelined in the decision-making process. They need immediate, clear and decisive communication from central Government so that they can act to address increases in case numbers before they become unmanageable. That process must be completely transparent and should be a partnership involving working together to keep people safe, not something announced by Ministers at the last minute without engagement.
It would be foolish to presume that the regulations have not had economic consequences. With households forbidden to socialise with others, local pubs and restaurants have been experiencing much lower footfall than normal. The hospitality industry has already been decimated by covid-19, and such local restrictions make it even more difficult. That is not to say that the restrictions should not be brought in. However, the businesses in question must be adequately supported.
I understand that the Government have taken steps to provide significant support to businesses and workers since the beginning of the pandemic, but with the winding down of support schemes in the next month, the future of many local businesses and their employees is desperately uncertain. Will the Minister please outline what additional targeted economic support, in addition to the national measures already in place, is being offered to areas with local restrictions to ensure that they do not fall behind the rest of the country during the recovery?
As we have said since the beginning of the pandemic, lockdowns are effective in preventing the spread of the virus only to a certain extent. They are short-term measures that bring a host of economic, social and mental health problems, and without an effective test and trace strategy coinciding with them they cause just as much harm as good.
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)
On the issue of the effects on mental health, a number of concerned constituents have now come to see me about visits to care homes and to relatives in supported living accommodation. Does my hon. Friend agree that there appears to be a one-size-fits-all approach to visiting, and that that needs to be looked at in the light of the experience in places such as Blackburn with Darwen, and Bradford?
Dr Allin-Khan
I thank my hon. Friend for his heartfelt and articulate intervention. He expressed the feelings of many families who feel ripped apart, unable to see those they love the most. A one-size-fits-all approach is not fitting at a time like this. We have to take into consideration the deep pain that families are going through.
We have been promised a “world-beating” test and trace system for months. Yet here we are, six months on, and our entire testing system is in a dire state. Members may be tired of hearing us talk about the state of the test and trace system, but we must be honest about the position we are in. Without a successful, adequate test and trace system, we risk losing lives and further affecting people’s mental health and businesses.
It has never been acceptable that there should be reports of people being asked to drive more than 50 miles to be tested. However, at this stage it is unbelievable. If people are being told to return to work or to go to school, but are prohibited from stopping in the street to chat with their neighbours, the least that should be expected of Government is to guarantee access to tests to those who need them. The Government knew that encouraging people to return to workplaces and opening schools would undoubtedly lead to a rise in demand for testing. Yet they have been nowhere near equipped to deal with it.
At this point, I would like to ask whether new concerns have been raised since schools and universities have gone back. How are restrictions ever to be lifted if people cannot get access to testing? I would like to know from the Minister what actions the Government are taking to rectify that, and I would like assurances that areas in local lockdown are not facing prolonged restrictions owing to problems with the Government’s own test and trace system.
Adequate testing provision also relies on communication of what people need to do to self-isolate properly and for the correct amount of time. Nationally, there has been changing guidance on the incubation period of the virus, and the Government ignored World Health Organisation guidance in the early weeks. That led to mixed messaging and confusion about self-isolation guidance.
Locally, it would be helpful to have answers to the following questions. On “relevant persons” being responsible for the dispersal of gatherings, have any of the local authorities within the scope of the SI raised concerns about licensed premises and the inability to carry out checks due to not having enough resources to do so safely? How many fixed penalty notices have been issued for not adhering to the regulations, and how many offences were carried out under the regulations?
The decision to lift restrictions in certain wards, but to keep them in neighbouring ones, seems counter- productive. If infection rates are dangerously high on one end of the road, surely there is a risk of further spread of the virus. If they are not dangerously high, why does one end of the road have restrictions while the other does not? Can the Minister please explain the reasoning behind that? Again, have Ministers made these decisions in full partnership with the local communities that they affect, or have they overruled local leaders who raised concerns?
As I have already mentioned but feel it is necessary to reiterate, imposing restrictions without engagement with local authorities is absolutely the wrong way to go and will lead to confusion, frustration and an inevitable resurgence of cases. Only by working together can we curb the spread of the virus. I hope the Government listen to our concerns, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting says, we support the extension of the regulations. It is absolutely vital in a period of a public health pandemic that we put lives and people’s safety first. The rates are very high in Blackburn with Darwen, and I want to be clear about what support the Government are providing to the local authority to communicate with its residents.
The Minister talked about putting information on gov.uk. Although I can reassure him that I find that a useful resource, it is not useful for everybody. It assumes a level of digital connectivity, which is not the case for lots of people, whose access, even if they have a mobile phone, is data limited. For many people, there will be language issues with access. There is a cost to a local authority in providing information in the right languages; sometimes that is orally, not on paper, because of the literacy levels of residents. What extra funding and support is being provided to the council to ensure that this can be funded, and that it is not having to make a choice about what other services it cuts to do that?
There is also a cost to enforcing the regulations and, crucially, pre-empting them. I completely concur with my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting that we need to ensure that councils are seen as partners in the process, because they have tentacles that run deep into the community: into faith groups, community groups, tenant groups and those individuals—we all know them in our constituencies—who are like gold dust. They are the people who can talk to a neighbour and persuade them to do the right thing—perhaps those people are scared or unable to communicate as clearly about it. The key issue is that a lot of people will be having to make the right choice but will be suffering in hardship.
It is a welcome step that the Government have finally announced that they will increase benefits to £500 for the isolation period. It would be helpful to know whether that is 10 days or a fortnight, and whether the Government are considering any support for people who are giving up jobs and will not get paid. It is easy to say that people will get £500, but they have to get through the benefit claims. In the meantime, they can end up with quite significant bills. For people on low incomes, £100, £200 or £300 is an insurmountable object. For many months or even years to come, that becomes a huge issue.
Only a few weeks ago, the Business and Planning Act 2020 was passed. It encouraged off-sales from licensed premises for the same hours as the licences on those premises, yet we now see in Blackburn with Darwen, and elsewhere in the country, a curfew—a closure of such premises from 10 pm to 5 am.
I would be grateful if the Minister outlined the rationale. What happens after 10 o’clock that makes the virus more likely to spread? There are many other environments where people are able to meet and will be doing so. What is the particular rationale for that? If they are to open at all, why not later? If they are not safe, why are they opening at all? Maybe I am being too black and white about it, but it would be helpful to hear what the Minister has to say.
Overall, I am confused, as are many residents and constituents, about the messaging that we are getting from the Government. Six hundred people can meet and mix in a school. It is quite right that our children should be back at school, which is something I fully support. Sixty people can be in a pub, but there is the rule of six. Of course, there are different rules altogether in Blackburn with Darwen. I do not think it is down to the Minister, but how will the Government, for whom he speaks—his boss, the Prime Minister, at No. 10—finally start getting some clarity out on this issue? The rule of six sounded so simple, but it has raised as many questions as it was supposed to resolve. I did not criticise it in the first few days because I felt that at least it sounded clear, but the more you delve into it, the less clear it becomes. It is important that local authorities are funded to be proactive and ahead of the curve. It is Blackburn with Darwen today, with other areas that have been locked down in the north-east and Merseyside and so on. However, as the Mayor of London is highlighting and as those of us in London know, it is likely to hit London soon and other areas of the country are there. Local authorities and local public health teams are able and willing to be proactive: not sitting at their desks waiting for a trace call, but able to be proactive, out there in the community to try and pre-empt things and be ahead of that curve. Are the Government putting any thought into how we can use that huge, useful and talented local resource to make sure that, together, we work—if I dare say “to beat this virus” I echo No. 10, so let me say—to manage the difficult health situation we are all suffering at the moment?
Edward Argar
Multiple questions were asked. I will endeavour to answer as many as I can, but where a specific figure was asked for by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Tooting, or the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch, if I do not have it to hand, I will endeavour to write to them with any further information.
I am grateful, as always in these meetings, for the tone adopted by the shadow Minister: while challenging, it was reasonable and pragmatic. She is quite right to highlight the importance and the focus of all Members on keeping people safe. I particularly highlight the fact that she, in her other work, goes a little bit above and beyond most Members in doing that. I thank her for that. She raised a number of points and I will try to capture them all.
The hon. Lady’s first point was around social isolation: the mental health cost and the cost on people’s lives of the national lockdown restrictions—people have seen the light at the end of the tunnel, but then local restrictions have been imposed. It will not surprise her to know that, while some of my constituents were only caught up in the local lockdown in Leicester and Leicestershire for a few weeks, I still had casework and people writing to me raising exactly that issue.
Support bubbles, while not a solution to everything, have been a big step in helping to combat loneliness for those who are single and very isolated. It is not a panacea for all of those problems, but it was an important step forward. I know the investment the Minister for Patient Safety, Mental Health and Suicide Prevention, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries) is making in this space, and I know that she and the hon. Lady have spoken about that, certainly across the Dispatch Box and I suspect probably in the corridors of this place. My hon. Friend shares the determination of the shadow Minister to make sure that we are able to do everything we can to tackle the mental health cost of the pandemic, and she is right to highlight the impact that that can have on particular groups.
The hon. Member for Hartlepool always makes thoughtful and compassionate contributions in this House and in Committees such as this one. He is right to highlight the impact on people of a lack of visits, often for very good reasons. Before I was a Minister, I was co-chair, with the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), of the all-party parliamentary group on dementia. People with dementia are another group where you can see the rapid decline that a lack of human contact can bring about. That is something, in terms of mental health, that the Government are fully seized upon, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Patient Safety, Mental Health and Suicide Prevention takes that incredibly seriously.
The shadow Minister was also right to talk, as I did in my opening remarks, about the sacrifices that people have made throughout, and it is right that we remember all of those and are grateful to everyone for what they have done to protect their fellow citizens. I do not believe that the Department has the statistics that she asked for in respect of those giving birth alone within that particular area, but I will ask that question on her behalf. I know it is something that, again, my hon. Friend the Minister for Patient Safety, Mental Health and Suicide Prevention, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) and others across the House have been raising—quite rightly. The guidance has been updated and clarified. It is important that trusts adhere to that guidance and follow the guidance set out by the Government.
The shadow Minister talked about partnership working, as did the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch. They know that I had a background in local government in London before becoming a Member of this House. As such, I am very clear that when we work in partnership with local authorities and local councils, we achieve a far better outcome, because we combine the scale and—for want of a better way of putting it—the clout of national Government with knowledge of individual communities and what works within them. In that way, we get a much better outcome than if we try to pursue one at the exclusion of the other.
The hon. Lady and the shadow Minister asked what the engagement meant in practice with regard to local authorities being consulted and engaged in the making of these regulations and the changes. Although I do not attend meetings of the Joint Biosecurity Centre or the gold meetings that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State chairs, the views of local council leaders and local public health leads all feed into his work and form a clear part of his decision making and the consultations that he undertakes. This does not mean he is bound to follow exactly what those people say, but they are consulted, and he takes it very seriously. I know this because I saw it from the other side of the fence, as it were, as a constituency MP in Leicestershire. I think that that is the only sensible way to approach this, and of course, local Members of Parliament also get to feed their views into the regular review periods and review sessions that the Secretary of State undertakes.
I will clarify the figures and write to hon. Members to make sure I have the right ones, but my recollection—it is only a recollection—is that across the four tranches of support for Blackburn and Darwen, for example, about £11 million of Government support has gone to the council. However, I commit to checking that that figure is accurate and writing to hon. Members to confirm it. There is financial support to help councils cope, just as we put in in Leicester, and that support is not only to help them cope with the additional work they have to do and the local public health work, exactly as the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch said. Forgive me for coming back to my own city, but in Leicester, multiple languages are spoken, and one of the key things was to provide the councils there with funding to put out communications in a variety of languages and forms, to try to address the point that has been raised by all those who have spoken: it is not just about doing this work, but communicating it so that people know what is happening in a way that is accessible and clear to them. In my experience, people want to do the right thing, but it is up to us to make that as clear to them as possible. This is inevitably complex, because the regulations change, the circumstances change, and the scientific advice we receive and act on changes. However, it is incumbent on us to try to make all of those things as clear and intelligible to everyone as possible.
The shadow Minister raised the issue of test and trace. We have made it clear, as has the Prime Minister, that the UK has achieved a significant amount in terms of its testing system over the past six months. Per 1,000 people, we are testing at a higher rate than any large European country, including France, Spain, Italy and Germany. We are testing on average 2.3 people per 1,000; each of those countries is testing about 1.15 or 1 person per 1,000, so we have massively increased our testing capacity. However, it is absolutely right—the Prime Minister was very clear about this—that we are open with the British people about the fact that a lot more needs to be done, and at pace. Although we have scaled up capacity, we need to do more.
The shadow Minister asked what reassurance I could offer to suggest that we are making progress in that area. She will be aware of what the biggest bottleneck is: although demand has significantly increased, this is not about blaming people who are understandably anxious, worried or concerned, and go and get a test. Yes, it is the people who have symptoms who should get tests, but this is not about blaming people who are anxious and worried: it is just a reflection of the fact that demand has gone up significantly. The real bottleneck—the real challenge—is to make sure capacity keeps up with that demand. The lab capacity is the bottleneck that we have seen. A new lighthouse lab came on stream recently in Loughborough, near my own patch, and more are coming on stream on an almost weekly basis to meet significantly increased lab demand, with greater use of automation and machine analysis of the tests in those labs. I suspect that the shadow Minister has a greater sense of what that means in practice than I do as a non-scientist, but we are rapidly expanding lab capacity to meet that need.
Meg Hillier
The Government have committed to increase tests to 500,000 a day by the end of October. Are the Government still on target to deliver that?
Edward Argar
The hon. Lady, who is a very experienced parliamentarian, is encouraging me to nail my colours to the mast, and I will. Yes, I believe we are. The Prime Minister has been very clear that there will be 500,000 tests across the pillars by the end of October. That is a very clear target, and it is one that he intends to meet, just as we met the 100,000-tests target. It was very difficult to do that, but we did it, and I am confident that we will meet this target. In this place, it is sometimes easier to set very low targets, because we know we will hit them. That is not the way of the Prime Minister or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who wants to set ambitious targets because he knows that if we meet them, we will be delivering what we need.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The Minister is making thorough points, but we are all keen to understand the capacity. Certain numbers are claimed, and perhaps, as he just said, there will be 500,000 at the end of October—we will see—but there is a difference between claimed capacity and real, delivered capacity. As I said in a previous Delegated Legislation Committee, yesterday I went to the testing centre in Coventry, which supplies Coventry and Warwickshire. It is a large facility; I do not know how many facilities there are of an equal size across the UK—perhaps the Minister would confirm that in writing to me in the next couple of days. Given that only 16 tests are done in one hour, over a 10-hour period that is 160 tests. If we factor that up, even if there were 100 testing centres of that size, that is not a huge quantity, compared with the 500,000 the Minister is claiming. Perhaps the Minister can respond in writing; it is unfair to ask him to give an answer now.
Edward Argar
I will respond briefly to the hon. Gentleman. I am happy to get back to him in writing, and I will try to get that number for him.
Matt Western
Related to that, on the capacity in the labs, would the Minister provide the figures that are available for real capacity on the ground, and the lab capacity, which I think probably is the bottleneck?
Edward Argar
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Regardless of the capacity in car parks or testing centres, there is a limited value to doing multiple tests if they are not processed in the lab in a timely fashion because of the bottleneck of lab capacity. That is possibly why his test centre is seeing fewer people than it would have the physical capacity to process if the lab capacity were not a challenge.
My recollection, which is a couple of weeks out of date, is that the capacity to process the tests was about 165,000 for community testing across all pillars and all types of test—the swab test as well as the antibody test. In that 500,000, there are multiple pillars. The capacity to process tests and the tests done were the same, and were, I think, about 165,000 a few weeks ago. We are using the capacity that we have, but it is constrained in the labs. I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman to clarify that. I will check the exact question that he posed when I see the transcript of this debate, and I will try to give him as direct and detailed answer as I can to exactly what he said.
Edward Argar
Yes.
The final thing that I was going to touch on before concluding was something raised by the shadow Minister. Again, I do not have the stats on a localised level to hand, but if I can get them I will write to her. She raised the fixed-penalty notices and offences within that area. I do not have up-to-date, detailed stats for that exact area, but if I can obtain them, I am of course happy to write to her. I reiterate my gratitude to all Committee members, local councillors, local authorities and the people in the affected areas for their forbearance with the challenging restrictions to protect people.
Meg Hillier
Noting the questions that I asked, does the Minister have any comment to make about the curfew—the 10 o’clock finish for licenced premises? It would be helpful to hear the Government’s view.
Edward Argar
Oh, yes. I mentioned this previously. The challenge is not pubs and hospitality venues, which are all doing a phenomenal job to keep their customers safe and try to ensure that they function as a business. They have had a very tough time, and I pay tribute to them for what they are doing, the measures they have put in place and how diligently they are working. Pubs in my constituency outside the lockdown area, when bits of it were in, went so far as to check, when they signed everyone in, whether the postcode came from within the lockdown area, and if it was they would very politely say, “You shouldn’t be here.” I pay tribute to landlords, restauranteurs and others.
We are anecdotally hearing that if people have been in a pub or out for dinner for two or three hours—how can I put this gently?—their adherence to or recollection of the regulations can lapse after a few drinks. The regulations try to strike a balance that addresses that and reduces the risk of those contacts through groups mingling while allowing those sectors to continue to operate in as a safe way as possible. We are cognisant of the health impact and the economic impact on them if restrictions were to be much tougher, so we are seeking to strike a scientifically advised balance in addressing those issues.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No.822).
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No.898)
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No.898).—(Edward Argar.)
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No.930)
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No.930).—(Edward Argar.)
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No.935)
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No.935).—(Edward Argar.)
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Leicester) (No. 2) Regulations 2020
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Leicester) (No. 2) (Amendment) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Patient Safety, Mental Health and Suicide Prevention (Ms Nadine Dorries)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Leicester) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 824).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Leicester) (No. 2) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 875).
Ms Dorries
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. The regulations came into force on 3 August and 19 August respectively. On each occasion, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care announced that the latest epidemiological data allowed a relaxation of some of the measures imposed on those living and working within the protected area of Leicester.
The regulations were preceded by the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Leicester) Regulations 2020, brought into force on 3 July, which imposed the first interventions in Leicester and the surrounding wards. They required the closure of all non-essential businesses, restricted indoor gatherings to no more than two people and outdoor gatherings to no more than six people from different households, and prohibited residents from staying away from their homes and visitors from staying within the protected area. They were debated by the House on 29 July.
Since those measures were introduced, and by the first review date, the number of positive cases in Leicester decreased and the rapid increases prior to the lockdown were arrested. It was clear that our co-ordinated national and local effort, particularly by the people of Leicester, was working. Amendments to those regulations came into force on Saturday 18 July, removing the boroughs of Blaby and Charnwood from the protected area. Then, on 24 July, a further amendment to the regulations allowed specific businesses and out-of-school childcare and educational establishments to reopen in Leicester. The amendments that came into force on 1 August removed Oadby and Wigston from the protected area.
The first of the regulations that we are debating today repealed the previous Leicester regulations. That is why we are not debating statutory instruments 2020 No. 754, No. 787 or No. 823, which have all been revoked. I hope that that summary sets the context of the present set of regulations. Given the urgency of the situation in Leicester, we used the emergency procedure to make them as soon as we could. They give effect to the decision set out by my right hon. Friend of State responding to the latest epidemiological evidence and local insights.
It is as important to remove restrictions as soon as possible as it is to impose them when transmission rates are unacceptably high, so that the people whom the restrictions impact hardest are not subject to them for any longer than necessary. The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Leicester) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 allowed more businesses to reopen across the city of Leicester. Residents were allowed to stay overnight away from their homes, and the restrictions on how many people gather in homes or outdoors were replaced by a restriction preventing different households from meeting up with each other in homes and gardens.
At that stage, the only businesses that remained closed were those where the transmission risk remained unacceptably high in the light of the incidence rates of coronavirus in Leicester—for example, nightclubs and casinos; nail bars, salons, spas, tattoo parlours and skin piercing services; sports venues such as indoor ice skating rinks, swimming pools, bowling alleys, and fitness and dance studios; outdoor swimming pools; conference centres and exhibition halls. There were various exemptions to the list—for example, to let blood donations take place at those locations, and for elite sportspersons and professional dancers to continue training.
The revised restriction on household gatherings in private homes was also subject to several exceptions to mitigate the impact of the measure. For example, those who were part of a support bubble arrangement were allowed to continue to meet, a person could attend a birth or visit someone who was dying, and gatherings necessary for work, education, childcare or charitable work could take place. Gatherings were also permitted in emergencies, to avoid injury or illness, or to escape risk of harm, to move to a new house, and to provide caring assistance to a vulnerable person.
The regulations include provisions that make it a criminal offence to breach any of the restrictions or requirements. As with the national regulations, those who breach the provisions may be issued with a fixed penalty notice fining them £100, or £50 if paid within 14 days, with repeated breaches attracting increasingly greater amounts. Offenders may also be fined following conviction.
On 19 August, the regulations were amended, considering the more stable incidence of the virus of 70 per 100,000 people. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agreed that it was safe to allow more businesses to reopen in accordance with covid-secure guidance, but not to relax the restriction on households meeting one another in private homes. From that date, nail bars, hair salons, tanning booths, spas, beauty salons, massage parlours, tattoo parlours, body and skin piercing businesses, and outdoor swimming pools could reopen. We also published guidance for people living in Leicester, to help them to understand what they can and cannot do under the restrictions. That was updated each time there was a change.
Concern about the outbreak in Leicester has been significant. Engagement with local leaders has been extensive, repeated and productive throughout the period. I thank the local authorities, the local resilience forum, Public Health England, the Joint Biosecurity Centre and the local director of public health, to whom I have spoken a number of times and to whom we refer repeatedly. Ivan Browne of Leicester City Council, who has done an amazing job, is the director of public health.
On each occasion, the decision to take action was driven not by one number but by a judgment about the overall situation. When we imposed the first lot of restrictions at the beginning of July, however, one number stood out: the seven-day infection rate, which in Leicester was 135 cases per 100,000, which I know the Opposition Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Leicester West, understands fully is an extremely high rate—three times higher than in the next highest area at that time. On the clinical front, admissions to hospitals were between six and 10 per day in Leicester, rather than one per day in other hospital trusts. Actions had already been taken to protect people in Leicester, including increases in testing and public health capacity. We hoped that those interventions and the work of the local public health teams would get the infection rate down without us having to take more drastic action but, sadly, that was not to be.
As required by the regulations, we have reviewed the situation at least once every 14 days since then, and we revised the geographical extent and the nature of the restrictions as and when it was safe to do so. We also published guidance for people living in Leicester, to help them to understand what they can and cannot do under the restrictions. I emphasise that point again. I think the hon. Lady would agree that the guidance and information produced have been extensive, thanks to people such as Ivan Browne.
We always knew that the path out of lockdown would not be entirely smooth. It was always likely that infections would rise in particular areas or workplaces, and we would need to be able to respond quickly and flexibly to such outbreaks. As the Committee has heard, the protected area covered by the regulations is due to be extended from tomorrow to include the Borough of Oadby and Wigston. Unfortunately, following a drop in the incidence rate in that area earlier this summer, rates have now risen to an unacceptably high level. We decided that restrictions on households meeting each other in their homes need to be put in place. As I said, there are ongoing reviews of the Leicester regulations. The next review is due on or before 25 September. We will of course make public the outcome of that review in due course.
I am grateful to all Members for their continued engagement in this challenging process and for their scrutiny of the regulations. In particular, I thank people in the protected area in Leicestershire, who have responded well to the measures put in place. It is thanks to their continued efforts that we were able to reopen non-essential retail, childcare and educational establishments. We hope to ease measures further if the improvements continue. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. The Labour party will not oppose the regulations, which lift many, although not all, of the additional restrictions Leicester was put under as the first area to go into local lockdown.
I hope that the Committee will forgive me, however, for raising questions on behalf of my constituents and of people across the city about why some restrictions remain in place, and for raising a number of serious concerns about how this whole process has been handled and the lessons that we might learn for local lockdowns in the rest of the country; about the impact Leicester’s extended lockdown has had on the lives of people in our city; and about the support that we need to minimise that impact, ensuring the best possible recovery. That is something that now applies to other areas in local lockdown. Finally, I will touch on the very real problems that we in Leicester are experiencing with test and trace—problems that are mirrored across the country—and the lessons that we can learn to put that right. Sorting out test and trace is essential to getting on top of the virus and avoiding even worse harm to our economy. Those issues are incredibly pertinent to announcements made today.
I will start by asking why some restrictions are still in place. One of the most important questions, and one that my constituents ask repeatedly, is why they are still not allowed to meet their families in their gardens. I cannot stress how horrible it has been for people to be separated from their families for months on end. They understand why being indoors causes difficulties, but why can they not be outdoors in their gardens? The Minister for Care told me in person that the reason is that reaching the garden would involve going through the house, and there are concerns that the infection might spread indoors; people might be less careful in the private atmosphere of a house than in the garden. In response, I asked, “Can you publish that? Can you put that description of why you are doing it with the evidence that underpins it online?” I have had many emails from constituents about it, but I am not a scientist; I cannot speak for the science, but I do want my constituents to know. Ivan Browne, Leicester’s brilliant director of public health, has also asked for that evidence, but it still has not appeared.
Why there would be a problem with outlining that reasoning online for my constituents? As the Minister will know, if we want people to comply with rules, there has to be trust, and for there to be trust, we have to be open with people about those reasons. I believe that the vast majority of people are completely reasonable and will listen to the reasons and follow the rules.
Will the Minister publish evidence or an explanation of why the Government are lifting the requirement for people in Leicester to shield from October 5th? Lots of people who are shielding are really pleased about that, but others are really concerned about why we are doing it, particularly in the context of the news that we have heard today about infections rising exponentially. Will the Government stick to that policy or change, it and can we have some information, because it is really important for people who have been shielding to know why?
I will turn now to the handling—or, rather, mishandling—of the additional Leicester lockdown and subsequent reviews. I will not go over what happened when the lockdown was first announced—as the Minister knows, I went through that last time we debated similar regulations—but I have never seen anything like the mishandling of that lockdown and the subsequent reviews, and I have worked, for my sins, in and around Parliament and Government for 23 years, including in the Department of Health. I understand that these are unprecedented times, but that could have been handled better.
Let me tell the Committee what happened when the results of the second review of the restrictions came out on 30 July. People were desperate; they were absolutely clinging on to the news for answers. “Am I going to be able to see my mum and dad and my brother and sister?”, “Am I going to be able to go back to work?”, or, “Is my business going to be able to open?” We were told by the city council that we would get the results of this review by mid-day; then just after lunch; and then by 5 pm. We waited and we waited, but by 8 pm there was still nothing. Finally, at 8.30 pm, I received a message from my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), the shadow Health Secretary, asking, “Are you on this call?” It turned out that an email had been sent after 8 pm, not by this Minister’s Parliamentary Private Secretary but by the social care Minister’s Parliamentary Private Secretary. I got on the call and I discovered that it was not about an announcement regarding Leicester; it was a call that included all the other MPs in the midlands and the north whose areas were going into an extra lockdown. People can imagine just how agitated many of them were. And even after that call, nothing was properly communicated to the public, so it was left to me and the other Leicester MPs to tweet what we had very briefly been told in that call, because our constituents were desperate to know what was happening.
I say all that not because I give a monkey’s about how I am told, but because I care about how my constituents are told and how they are treated, and because if we want people to abide by the rules, they have to know what the rules are, rather than being left to scrabble around to try and make sense of a tweet by the Health Secretary at 9.15 pm. And just for the record, I do not think that it is ever good to tweet at that time of night; that is true in general, but particularly on an issue such as this. I think the vast majority of people are prepared to do the right thing and make sacrifices, but they expect fairness from the Government and at the bare minimum to be treated with respect, and as if their lives and livelihoods matter. That is what my constituents told me; they said they felt that they did not matter and had just been left hanging on for news that completely affects their lives.
That is not good enough. The Government need to change how future local lockdowns are announced. They need to set clear dates and times for announcements, and say how they will be made. My constituents think that the Government have to provide concise and readily available information to the public. The Government must not ever send a tweet to make this kind of announcement.
I turn now to the impact that the extra lockdown has had on our city and the need for more support. I should say in advance that I know these issues are way beyond the Minister’s direct remit, but she will understand why I want to put this on the record.
All of us in this room know the terrible toll that the virus has taken on people’s lives and livelihoods, and the situation has been even worse in areas with local lockdowns. Leicester, which was the first place to go into local lockdown, has suffered the longest. People are still not able to meet up with the people they love the most—their mums, dads, brothers, sisters, aunties, uncles, nephews and nieces. As I have already said, it is vital that the Government explain why such meetings are not allowed, even in people’s gardens.
The pressures on unpaid family carers are perhaps even more severe. Many tell me that they have been pushed to absolute breaking point, providing many more hours of care a week or being forced to shield with the people they care for, so as not to risk infecting their loved ones. They have received no extra help or support, let alone any desperately needed breaks. As one woman told me in a recent surgery: “I have nothing left. You can’t pour from an empty cup.” Will the Minister explain why the Government’s winter plan for social care contains nothing on improving support for family carers, beyond saying that they will get guidance, a phoneline and a free flu vaccine? How will that help the people upon whom the whole health and care system relies?
People with relatives in care homes also feel pushed to the limit, as they have been unable to see their relatives for nearly six months. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe) told me about a constituent who had contacted her about this issue, describing the anguish that her family was experiencing. Her constituent said:
“As someone who has a family member in a care home”—
that is, in a care home in a ward that was particularly affected—
“I’m seeing and hearing (via Skype) my family member becoming very distressed, withdrawn and their condition deteriorating due to the lack of physical and visual contact with their family members...My family are absolutely distraught by the fact that we are not being allowed to see our family member but are having to hear them sobbing on the telephone and being told by staff how agitated they are and how lockdown is affecting them and causing their condition to deteriorate. We can’t get this time back with our family member and time is precious.”
None of us wants to risk bringing the virus back into care homes, but instead of banning family visits in high-risk local lockdown areas, why do the Minister and the Government not make it their top priority to get visits happening again by guaranteeing at least one family member a weekly covid test, so that they can see the person they love and, crucially, that person’s health does not get even worse?
As I said in our last discussion on the regulations, families are under massive financial pressure, too. Since the start of the pandemic, the number of people on universal credit in Leicester has doubled and unemployment is rising month on month. More and more people are struggling to make ends meet, pay their mortgage or rent, keep the gas and electricity on, and even put food on the table. As chair of the “Feeding Leicester” programme to tackle food poverty in the city, I see the brutal impact of the virus on a city where 40% of children were already living in poverty even before it struck. Our emergency food partnership of 16 local food banks has seen a 300% increase in demand since the pandemic began. Christ the King food bank in Beaumont Leys, which I visited the other week, went from supporting about 80 families a week to 400, through the unbelievable, amazing efforts of its volunteers. The volunteers told me that, whereas at the start of the lockdown they were helping many people who were shielding, they now see more and more people who have been made redundant. With one in three employees furloughed in Leicester, they are worried about what will happen when the furlough and self-employed schemes finish next month. As winter is fast approaching, many people face the awful choice of heating or eating.
I know that those issues are beyond the Minister’s direct responsibility, but why will her Government not consider the approach taken in countries such as Germany and France? Those countries have extended their employment schemes until 2021 and made them much more flexible, so that people can work part time, or a few hours, to keep contact with the world of work and keep their business going, but still get enough support to pay the bills, or people can have support tied to training to develop new skills in areas of the economy that are likely to grow in future. Ministers must end their one-size-fits-all approach and continue to support the hardest hit sectors of our economy, where people still cannot go back to business as usual, as well as parts of the country such as Leicester that are still subject to local restrictions.
Leicester’s businesses have been subject to the longest lockdown in the country. While some additional—and hugely welcome—support has been made available, it will not be enough to help many of them survive, even though they were completely viable before the pandemic and have done the right thing. After lobbying from me and other MPs from the city and the county, the Government agreed to provide an additional £2.6 million for Leicester’s businesses to help them to cope with having to stay shut for longer, but I am afraid that, as the East Midlands chamber of commerce has said, Government support for businesses in areas of extra lockdown “only scratches the surface”. What we really need is
“a comprehensive package of support from Government for firms affected by local restrictions, which are sadly becoming more frequent each week.”
I hope the Government will fully acknowledge the additional funding that our local councils need to keep on top of the covid crisis. Leicester City Council’s response to the pandemic is already set to cost more than £40 million, and that figure is likely to get even greater as cases rise and additional lockdown measures come into place.
Finally, I turn to test and trace, the problems we see in Leicester, and what the Government could do to get it right. I pay tribute, as the Minister has done, to the amazing work of our local director of public health, Ivan Browne, his team and all the other Leicester City Council staff who have been working around the clock to get tests to the people who need them. As part of that, the adult social care team under the fantastic directorship of Martin Samuels is working really hard to prevent infections in care homes. In the past 11 weeks they have been ringing each care home at least twice a week and collecting data directly, as little information has been available from the national test and trace system. I do not understand that. Why can we not get the information on care home test results from the national test and trace service back to our local system? Perhaps the Minister can explain that. We have consistently found that staff are being tested about once a fortnight, not once a week—only half as often as recommended.
My own calls with local care homes show that some are having real problems getting test results back and sometime having to wait up to seven days. That means they have to do the next test before getting the results back from the last, with all the risks that that brings from having potentially asymptomatic staff at work for a whole week. The Government first promised weekly testing in care homes with a 24-hour turnaround of results in July, but that is still not happening, even in a high-risk area such as Leicester, where it should have been an absolute priority.
The problems with testing are not confined to care homes, as I am sure hon. Members know from their own experience. Schools in my constituency are also reporting serious issues with testing, particularly for children. Previously, we had lots of walk-in centres in Leicester because of our outbreak. People could simply walk in and get tested, but now parents are being told they must book an appointment first. Not only has that caused confusion, but there are no appointments available to book, so pupils are missing out on yet more time in the classroom. They have to go home and self-isolate because they cannot get a test at all.
The Children’s Commissioner was absolutely right to say today that the Government “risks failing a generation” of children if they do not sort out the testing fiasco, and that the progress made by reopening schools just weeks ago risks being “thrown away” unless the tests are available to keep children in class. That must be an absolute priority. Two things need to happen. First, there has to be much closer working—
The Chair
Order. I gently remind the shadow Minister not to stray from the scope of the regulations.
Liz Kendall
No, I absolutely will not. You will be relieved to hear, Mrs Murray, that I do not have much more to say. Forgive me for trying to get this on the record but, as a local MP, the lockdown is the most important thing that has happened to our city, and I want to make sure I reflect on that.
We have to work much more closely with local public health teams to share information and build their capacity on test and trace, rather than have a centrally driven approach. We know that our teams get much better results when they call people, because people recognise a local number. That is a basic, simple thing. The teams tell me that when the person they get hold of on the phone gives them all the contacts that they have had in the last 10 days, they have to give that information to the national test and trace system. How on earth does that make sense?
We also have to build lab capacity, which we desperately need to grow to help to bring the testing backlog down and speed up turnaround time for results. Many universities and research facilities stand ready to help, but the Government have again insisted on national contracts with private sector organisations instead of also having a really good local approach. I hope the Minister will say what steps she will take to shift the focus to a more locally led approach to test and trace in Leicester and across the country. That is relevant to these regulations. I do not want the Minister to come back here to put them all in place again because we cannot get the test and trace system working. I want the Minister and the Government to succeed on test and trace, on keeping our kids at school, and on opening our economy, because that is what is best for my constituents.
In conclusion, many lessons need to be learnt from Leicester’s experience. There must be much better handling of local lockdowns in terms of how decisions are taken and information shared, both with residents and those responsible for making the lockdowns work. We must get to get to grips with test and trace, with a more locally led approach that builds on the knowledge, resources and capacity of local public health teams who know their communities, rather than a centrally managed and controlled system, and we must have a much more tailored and flexible approach to supporting local economies that have faced extra restrictions.
People do not want handouts and they do not expect Government schemes to carry on forever—that is not something that I have ever argued for—but they do expect support to help them get back on their feet when they do the right thing. Above all, we need to understand that the failure to sort out testing is making our economic recovery even harder. We cannot deal with the economic crisis unless we effectively deal with the health crisis, and I am afraid the Government have been sadly lacking on both. I thank the Committee for its forbearance.
Ms Dorries
I thank the hon. Lady for her impassioned speech. Nobody would ever doubt her commitment to Leicester. As a Minister who has now been responsible for restrictions being put in place in a number of areas across the country, I know how upsetting that is for everybody and especially MPs, who really care about their constituencies and the lives of their constituents. It is distressing. The hon. Member for Leicester West raised many points today. I will hopefully address all of them and will do so as best I can. She did go out of scope in bringing up testing and tracing, but I will, with the tolerance of the Chair, address some of those points.
First, I thank hon. Members for being here today for what is an important debate. The restrictions that we have debated today are necessary in these unprecedented times, and they are important for three reasons, the first and foremost of which is to protect the people of Leicester and the surrounding areas from this terrible, dreadful virus. The lockdown that we have had to impose has been difficult, but I think that the people of Leicester recognise that letting the virus spread unchecked would be far worse.
Secondly, the restrictions are important because they protect those of us who do not live in Leicester. As a result of these ongoing restrictions, there is less risk of the unacceptably high infection rates in that city spreading elsewhere. We should recognise that the restrictions and difficulties faced by the people of Leicester will benefit the whole country.
Thirdly, the restrictions show our absolute determination to respond to the outbreak of the virus in a focused and effective way. We are learning from what has happened in Leicester as we work with local authorities and others in order to respond to future localised outbreaks. We have seen that recently in parts of the north-west and north-east of England, as well as in the midlands.
I am pleased that, since 3 July, when the original restrictions came into force, the area of Leicestershire subject to the restrictions has been reduced and we have been able gradually to allow businesses to reopen and residents to meet up with each other. That recognises the reductions in the incidence rate and shows that Leicester is on the path to realigning with the rest of England’s measures. The next review will take place this Friday, 25 September.
I would like now to deal with some of the points that the hon. Member for Leicester West raised. She spoke about the issue of gardens and asked why people could not go into back gardens. My hon. Friend the Minister responsible for social care was absolutely right in her answer previously. It is because not all homes have access to gardens without going through houses, and winter is coming—to quote a far better phrase from a better source than me. Winter is indeed coming and people will not be so inclined to stay in the gardens and not go into the houses. We do not want people not to be able to mix in their gardens. We want families to be together. We want people to mix. But as always, we are guided by the science.
I am sure that the hon. Lady heard the announcement by the chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser today. If we said, “Can people mix in gardens; can they do that?”, and they said that it was safe to allow them to do so, we would. We want people and families to be in contact. It is heartbreaking that families are not. But I am afraid it is as it is. We cannot make one rule for families who have direct access to a garden and another rule for families who do not. That just is not fair.
I will mention businesses in a moment; I will deal now with the test-and-trace aspect that the hon. Lady mentioned and the testing. I have to say—with your forbearance, Mrs Murray—that we have one of the best testing rates in the world; it is equivalent to at least one test for every five people in the country, outpacing Germany, Spain and France. I never miss an opportunity to say that at the moment, because we are one of the best testers out there. We had the capacity for over 250,000 antigen tests on 18 September, from just 2,000 a day in March, and over 2 million testing kits are delivered to almost 9,000 care homes—I will not go on with the rest of the list, Mrs Murray, because I know that you would pull me up.
On test and trace, where do I start? We have reached 86.6% of people who have been contacted; that is over 13,000 positive people who have been reached via contacting. This system did not start on day one; it was not up to speed on day one. We agree with that. The virus blindsided us—for want of a better word—but we are in a much better place now with test and trace, and I have to thank Baroness Harding for her extraordinary efforts.
Grants are now in place for businesses that are required to shut due to the new measures. They can claim up to £1,500 per property every three weeks, because we recognise the impact of localised restrictions on local businesses. That is why we allowed the opening of non-essential retail as soon as the data showed that it was safe to do so. Leicester businesses have access to a large number of support schemes that are in place to help businesses through what is a very difficult time. They include discretionary grants, tax breaks and more. The only way to protect our people and economy is to prevent a second wave of the virus, which is why measures such as those that we have taken in Leicester are necessary and proportionate.
The hon. Lady spoke about shielding. As incidence rates are starting to fall, we continue to review the position. People who are clinically extremely vulnerable and living in the city have been advised to continue to shield. That advice is being reviewed as part of the wider reviews of the measures, and it will be changed as soon as it is safe to do so. Support for shielding has been extended to allow the advice to be followed.
The hon. Lady made a point about communications and having information about the lockdown in Leicester—the words communicated to people. She spoke about coming on to the MP engagement call, and she said that the decision was suddenly arrived at and no one knew. I have to correct her. We had discussions with the Mayor of Leicester, Ivan Browne, and with Mike Sandees from the county side of Oadby and Wigston, who has provided two mobile testing centres in Oadby and Wigston and done a fantastic job. Everybody in Leicester wants this nightmare to end. I know, because I was involved in the calls and meetings. We had the Mayor of Leicester, the leaders of both the county council and Leicester City Council, the chief executives of both the county council and the city council, the directors of health from both councils, and the chief constable. Almost all the people who were responsible for the implementation of the local management outbreak plan were in discussions about the reviews and what was happening in Leicester all the way along.
As the hon. Lady knows, we cannot manage what happens in 10 Acacia Avenue in Leicester from Westminster. That is why we introduced local managements outbreak plans across the country. Every local authority stepped up to the plate. They did their bit, and we provided them with £400 million-worth of funding to do it. Leicester has received a considerable sum of money.
As I am sure the hon. Lady is aware, we have also now introduced consensus meetings, where hon. Members can discuss the incidence rates in their constituencies with their directors of public health and their chief executives. The meetings are normally held on Tuesday afternoons for representation to JBC—joint biodiversity centre—Silver on a Wednesday, and we take the decisions in JBC Gold on a Thursday. The Secretary of State introduced that four or five weeks ago so that MPs can be actively involved in the decisions that are taken in their local areas.
I urge the hon. Lady to be part of the consensus meetings with those individuals on a Tuesday afternoon. If she thinks that some wards should not be in lockdown, or that parts of the regulations should be relaxed, she can make those representations. If they are not listened to by her local authority, she can come to the Ministers at the Department of Health and Social Care and give us the evidence and data to show why she thinks that the wrong path is being taken in Leicester and why she thinks that the local authority is locking down or suggesting the imposition of restrictions where they should not be doing so. I urge her to do that. We do not make any decisions in the Department of Health and Social Care without full consultation with everybody on the ground, particularly those who are responsible for designing and delivering the local outbreak management plan.
Let me conclude by recording on behalf of the Government our thanks to all the people of Leicester, particularly the NHS and care workers in the city. They put themselves on the frontline on a daily basis with their ongoing hard work to keep our vital services running and to save lives throughout this crisis.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Leicester) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 824).
HEALTH PROTECTION (CORONAVIRUS, RESTRICTIONS) (LEICESTER) (NO. 2) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2020
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Leicester) (No. 2) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 875).—(Ms Dorries.)
Draft Restriction of Public Sector Exit Payments Regulations 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Steve Barclay)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Restriction of Public Sector Exit Payments Regulations 2020.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I know that you have a long-standing interest in the topic of the draft regulations, and I am pleased that you will oversee the debate.
Each year, hundreds of millions of pounds are spent on exit payments to public sector workers that exceed £100,000. The money funding these payments comes from taxpayers. The draft instrument will fulfil the Government’s 2015 manifesto commitment to end six-figure pay-offs by capping public sector exit payments at £95,000.
The concern over high exit payments is shared by many across the House. For example, the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar), an Opposition Member, said in the House as recently as 13 March 2020:
“The hon. Gentleman is rightly drawing attention to a significant problem. Is there not another aspect to it, which is that many of these individuals, quite frankly, should not be being given any payments, because they should actually be being sacked for failure to perform their jobs? They are taking sums of money and then transferring to other parts of the public sector, where they will have a repeated pattern of failure. Is there not a need for a real change in culture”.—[Official Report, 13 March 2020; Vol. 673, c. 622.]
I am sure that view, expressed by an Opposition Member, is shared by many other colleagues in the House.
Public sector workers play a vital role in the running of our economy. Earlier this year, we accepted the recommendations of the independent pay review bodies and announced a significant real-terms pay increase for around 900,000 public sector workers. However, we must ensure that all aspects of public sector pay and remuneration deliver value for money for the taxpayer. There are many recent examples of employees leaving their role and receiving six-figure packages funded by the taxpayer, and it is our view that these large exit payments do not deliver that aim, not least given the wider economic impact of coronavirus.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
Although I do not think there is disagreement on the need to tackle excessive exit payments, why are the Government choosing to include harassment and discrimination payments in the scope of what they seek to do?
Steve Barclay
I will come on to the distinction between those on large payments, where I think there is a degree of consensus in the House, and how the waivers will address some of the concerns that the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members expressed in the previous debate on this issue. I will come on to that if he gives me a moment, and if he then wants to come back with an intervention, I will be very happy to accept it.
Exit payments are important to an employer’s ability to reform and to react to new circumstances. They are also an important source of support for individuals as they find new employment or as a bridge to retirement age. That is why the Government are taking forward these important regulations to cap public sector exit payments at £95,000. The level of the cap amounts to almost six times the maximum statutory redundancy payment. On an average salary of £24,897, the average person would have to work almost four years to earn £95,000, while someone working 35 hours a week on the national living wage would have to work around six years to earn £95,000—and that ignores the fact that the first £30,000 is paid tax-free. As such, it is clear that a £95,000 cap will still offer a significant level of compensation while ensuring value for money for the public finances. In fact, I think that the majority of our constituents would regard it as a generous amount.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The Minister has talked about trying to address some concerns. What can he tell Members about how he will address the concerns expressed by the nuclear workers who were given specific guarantees about their pensions that have been repeatedly overridden?
Steve Barclay
I very much welcome that intervention, because that concern was raised by a number of Opposition Members when we debated this issue in the House previously. We have agreed a waiver that will apply to nuclear decommissioning as part of the draft regulations. I will come on to the wider point about how the waiver will apply, but the exemption that applies to nuclear decommissioning illustrates that we have taken on board some of the concerns that Opposition Members have raised.
I am grateful to all members of the public, employers, unions and others who submitted their views as part of the consultation process. The consultation in April 2019 received more than 600 responses, which helped inform the final regulations following the earlier consultation in 2015, which had more than 4,000 responses. I am also grateful to many of my right hon. and hon. Friends for their representations during the development of the policies.
The Government’s intention was made clear at the start, which was to apply the cap to all public sector workers. As the 2015 consultation stated, it would apply to
“all bodies classified within central and local government and non-financial public corporation sectors as determined by the Office for National Statistics for National Account purposes, with a small number of exceptions.”
The 2019 consultation stated:
“The government is proposing a staged process of implementation across the public sector. The first stage will capture most public sector employees, before extending the cap to the rest of the public sector in the second stage. Prioritising in this way will ensure most exit payments in the public sector are limited to £95,000 without further delay, while work continues on expanding the scope of the regulations.”
To ensure fairness and consistency and to give taxpayers confidence that their money is being spent properly, it is right that all public sector bodies are immediately in scope, with limited exceptions, such as the one I just referred to. The consultation in 2019 proposed capturing public sector bodies in two stages. Many of the responses objected to that proposal. We have therefore revised the proposal and reverted to applying the cap to all public sector bodies at once. The Government’s intention to cap exit payments has now been in the public domain for more than five years, providing public sector bodies and employees with sufficient time to communicate their views, including through the consultation process, and to prepare for the implementation of the cap.
Neil Coyle
The Minister raised the point about fairness, and he says this matter has been in the public domain since 2015. Why, then, has no equality impact assessment been undertaken? How many people are affected and when will the Government provide the EQIA?
Steve Barclay
It depends on different circumstances as to how many people will be affected. A key issue is that the proposals do not affect individuals’ accrued pension rights. A concern was raised in the previous debate about the impact on pension rights. Again, that is one of the issues we have listened to and taken on board. It is important to note that accrued pension rights are not affected by the regulations. In the vast majority of cases, the cap will have no effect on the exit package of an individual, because individuals retain any right to receive an unreduced pension, provided their overall exit payment falls below the cap of £95,000, which applies in most cases.
However, the Government believe it is right to include all payments related to exit within the scope of the cap. The option of an employer-funded early retirement, known as pension top-up payments, is often the most costly element of an exit payment. It is ultimately funded by the taxpayer, so it is right that it is included.
Neil Coyle
The Minister is being very generous in giving way. The measure states that all payments will be taken into scope. A very practical example is the case of the Birmingham women who received unequal pay for many years. The 174 women took the case to the Supreme Court and won. For some full-time care workers, the payments would have been more than £100,000 just to catch up on the unequal pay they had experienced for many decades of service in a difficult job. Why are the Government including that in these regulations?
Steve Barclay
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I took that point away from the previous debate and was concerned to show the House that we had listened. In fact, it echoes the next line of my speech: I do accept that in some circumstances it will be appropriate for employees to receive an exit payment of more than £95,000.
Steve Barclay
I am always generous in taking interventions. I was trying to answer the hon. Gentleman’s legitimate challenge, but I will of course take the hon. Lady’s intervention.
Patricia Gibson
May I just ask the Minister, for the purpose of clarity, whether he is saying that he will exempt nuclear decommissioning workers? Magnox is on the list here, so unless the Minister has been very clear and I have not listened properly, I wonder whether he will clarify that point.
Steve Barclay
I am very happy to share with the hon. Lady the detail of that waiver as it relates to the pensions of Nuclear Decommissioning Authority workers. The waiver will apply in respect of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. That includes—
Steve Barclay
If the hon. Lady will allow me to answer the question, I was going to read out the exact legal prose. Sometimes we are accused of not being precise enough, so I was going to go straight to the legal text for her. It says:
“made to or on behalf of an employee…who is employed…by a company or other body holding a site licence granted under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 for one or more nuclear-licenced sites…and on a site that is subject of a decommissioning programme agreed between the NDA and the BEIS Secretary of State, and…whose employment is terminated”—
details follow accordingly. So there is an exemption there.
I will come back to the point made by the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark. In fact, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North, who has not as yet spoken, said in the previous debate that she accepted the wider principle of exit payment caps, but had some concerns. We have sought to look at, and listen to, the concerns that Opposition Members have raised. I accept that there are some circumstances in which it is appropriate for employees to receive an exit payment over £95,000, including where imposing the cap would cause genuine hardship. We are committed to ending taxpayer-funded six-figure payouts for the best-paid public sector workers, but it is appropriate that the waiver system can be exercised with ministerial discretion if it is felt that implementing the cap would go against the original principles and result in hardship.
Steve Barclay
Let me just finish the point. The waiver may also be used to give effect to urgent workplace reforms. It applies where a payment is made as a result of the application of TUPE regulations, or where the payment is made to settle a grievance related to whistleblowing, discrimination, or health and safety-related dismissal. This mechanism is very important in allowing us to review how the cap is being applied and to ensure that we remain consistent with our original aims for the regulations. I hope that this system will address many of the questions that hon. Members have.
Does the hon. Gentleman want to come in one final time?
Neil Coyle
I just want a clarification on the waiver process. Do the Government intend to make it the case that a local authority has to seek permission from a Minister in the Department to honour a legally decided case of discrimination and make the payment that a court has ordered? Is that the process that local authorities and other public bodies will have to follow?
Steve Barclay
That is a very valid question. In a whistleblower case, for example, there is no requirement on the local authority to submit a business case for approval. There are mandatory causes for exemption. However, where a discretionary exemption is sought, such as on a restructuring, it is necessary to submit a business case.[Official Report, 2 November 2020, Vol. 683, c. 1MC.]
Steve Barclay
The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I simply remind him that as a Minister, I constantly get requests when bodies want to exceed the £150,000 payment. They are quite happy to submit business requests for that, so I do not see why it is onerous to say that the same applies to seeking consent when looking to restructure, and to exempt in that way.
In other parts of the United Kingdom, devolved Administrations have already acted to implement their own policy on severance payments. The Scottish Government have implemented a £95,000 cap on payments made by devolved bodies by updating the Scottish public finance manual. It is right that this Parliament does the same by approving these regulations. As we respond to the financial impacts of covid-19, the inappropriateness of large exit payments is reinforced. Ensuring that rewards are proportionate and taxpayer money is spent fairly must be prioritised. The regulations are carefully designed to end excessive exit payments, and will come into force 21 days after they are made. I commend them to the Committee.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. Although no one believes that huge exit payments from the public sector are right, and it is an issue that needs to be addressed, we are concerned about the way the Government are implementing the regulations. They are unnecessary, premature, unhelpful, place burdens on the public sector that are disproportionate to their purpose and, in some cases, present perverse disincentives, too.
I will outline those points in more detail. The Minister referred in particular to regulations implemented on a similar basis by the Scottish Government. Committee members will be aware, particularly if they were in the Chamber last week, that when it comes to challenging the Scottish Government, I certainly do not pull my punches with the SNP, but it would only be fair to acknowledge—as the Minister ought to have done—that one of the big differences between the approaches of the Scottish and UK Governments is the exemption of pension strain payments from the cap, which, as we have heard from many representations by trade unions and representatives of chief executives in local government, is one of the key problems and challenges when it comes to implementing the regulations.
Of course, that is not the only challenge. Without index-linking, the threshold will slowly reduce in real terms, catching more and more public sector workers within its scope. That sets in motion a steady ratchet on public sector workers. If the cap is necessary—the Minister has outlined the case for that on many occasions—it would be right for it to be linked to public sector pay, so that there is no erosion of the level of cap in real terms.
The provisions are presented as an attempt to exercise restraint on payments to the very highest paid public sector workers. However, as highlighted by so many of the responses and representations made by trade unions—who are not, by the way, famous for defending excessive levels of high pay, but are absolutely steadfast in defending public sector workers who receive ordinary or, in some cases, modest levels of pay—this is not something that will simply affect the highest-paid workers. It will catch an awful lot of ordinary workers on ordinary levels of pay, as a direct result of including pension strain payments in the cap. If the Government’s intent is simply to prevent higher-paid workers being paid large severance payments, a simple index-linked earnings-level exemption would provide that without most of the problems that the waivers create.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark said, there is no equality impact assessment for the scheme, and the list of included and exempted bodies also causes concerns. Why is the judiciary exempted, but not staff of the Crown Prosecution Service? The staff of those elements of the justice system have very different demographic profiles. As we heard very strongly from the TUC, the decision not to undertake a comprehensive equality impact assessment gives serious cause for concern. The TUC is of the view that the Government may well be in breach of their obligations under the public sector equality duty. The union GMB argued at the time that the Treasury’s 2016 equality impact assessment was seriously deficient. It is now also out of date. GMB is also concerned about the public sector equality duty.
The Minister mentioned the waiver process, which seems cumbersome and overcentralised, as all decisions by local authorities need approval from the Treasury. I would have thought, given some of the examples of public sector waste and profligacy as a result of Government incompetence and the bad management of contracts that we outlined this morning, that the Minister would welcome some of his time being freed up to ensure that more taxpayers’ money is more wisely spent. Maybe the regulations might keep his eyes focused on the wrong issue, so that we end up in a position whereby the Treasury is penny wise but billions of pounds foolish when it comes to some of the spending commitments and priorities that the Treasury has outlined in recent weeks and months. Although it is the Labour online conference week, I will not dwell too much on that, Sir Christopher, because you will no doubt rule that it is out of the scope of the regulations, and rightly so.
To go back to the ongoing consultation—led by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government —on changes to the local government pension scheme that are necessary to give effect to the provisions, if the Committee approves the regulations, local government employers will find it difficult to agree redundancy packages with staff and unions in the meantime, because of concerns about the legality of the exit payments. A £95,000 cash payment and no access to pension is not permitted by the regulations governing early access to unreduced pension in the local government pension schemes.
There is also a wider point about local government unions. I should say, having been in local government as an elected member, that I am also a member of Unison, which represents members of local government. Local government unions have in their collective bargaining on pay and conditions deliberately favoured positive pension concerns and priorities over other issues. Local government workers have given up other benefits to keep those pension terms. The regulations are an arbitrary attack on terms that have been secured through agreement between unions and employers.
The regulations also provide inadequate recognition of contractual notice periods. Although they exempt up to three months’ pay in lieu of notice, the Government will know that some public sector staff are contractually entitled to six months’ notice. COT3 settlements, which are ACAS-arranged compromise settlements, are mostly included in the scope of the cap—but not employment tribunal awards. That will have the utterly perverse effect of incentivising people to go to tribunal, and flies in the face of the Government’s push towards early conciliation, creating a much more costly process for everyone.
It would be helpful, particularly given the intervention made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, to clear up the issue about settlements in discrimination cases, and how they are treated. It would also be helpful if the Chief Secretary would elaborate on why health and safety settlements are not exempted from the cap. They are unlimited if people go to tribunal. The Government need to clear up the issue of where they stand on settlements in discrimination and health and safety cases. Both are treated as unlimited if people take them to the employment tribunal.
As we have already argued, the inclusion of pension strain costs means that long-serving workers on lower salaries, and not just the highest-paid, will be caught out. The Local Government Association has given figures and examples showing how, on its estimate of the methodology for calculating pension strain costs, the cap of £95,000 would, as a result of the pension strain issue, hit certain people leaving with a severance payment. They would include a woman leaving the scheme at age 55 on 31 March 2019, after 35 years’ service, earning £23,500—not a particularly large amount of money—with a severance payment based on statutory weeks multiplied by actual weekly pay, multiplied by 1.5.
Moving on to people leaving with a redundancy payment, the LGA highlights the example of a woman leaving the scheme at age 55 on 31 March 2019 after 35 years of service, earning £25,100, with a redundancy payment based on a maximum weekly pay of £525. Therefore, the idea that it is only the highest-paid public sector workers who are targeted simply does not hold water.
There are some basic questions about fairness and impact. It is no good Members standing on their front doorstep clapping the public sector workers among their fellow residents on the street, and getting their mobile phone out to enjoy a few retweets, if in the middle of the pandemic we arrive back in Parliament to attack the conditions of the very public sector workers who are supporting our country through the crisis. For those reasons we cannot support the Government. We shall oppose the statutory instrument and it is a source of deep regret that the Government have listened, as the Chief Secretary said, to some concerns, but that they have not addressed some of those fundamental concerns we have raised this afternoon.
Patricia Gibson
I shall try to be brief. I support what has been said by the hon. Member for Ilford North, who is concerned about equality impact assessments, and how the measure has unintended consequences that have not yet been addressed. No one—not the Scottish National party and probably not any other party—has any objection to the general principle of a public sector exit payment cap. However, I note that the measure before the Committee gives rise to concern about waivers in cases of unfair dismissal and health and safety-related detriment. The waiver process is a matter of concern.
The SNP does not—and I certainly do not—support the statutory instrument. It is singularly unfair to those in the nuclear decommissioning industry. Those workers have suffered cuts to their pensions in the recent past, and that is a cause of profound concern to all those in the industry, not least those in my constituency who are employed at Hunterston. Some history, if you will give me latitude, Sir Christopher, is important. When the nuclear estate was privatised in the 1980s, the Tory Government under Margaret Thatcher gave guarantees requiring the new private sector employers to continue to provide pension benefits for those employed at the time of privatisation. The phrase used at the time to describe that settlement was,
“at least as good as those they were receiving in the public sector.”
Where we have had revisions to the pension arrangements of nuclear decommissioning workers on more than one occasion in fairly recent years, we know that commitment has been abandoned. Now there is the prospect of these exit payment caps.
The UK Government have decided that, because the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority is classified as public sector, these schemes fall under public sector arrangements, but clearly these pensions are not public sector pensions. Decommissioning sites are now in the private sector and, unlike for every other public sector worker, redundancy is an inherent part of their job.
The Minister seems to have said and to have put on the record today that all nuclear decommissioning workers will be exempted from the public sector exit payments cap. We should have had sight of that commitment—if I have understood him correctly and that is his commitment. We should have had that commitment long before now, and we should have had commitments and guarantees to employees of Magnox Ltd and others affected by the Enterprise Act 2016.
I note that Magnox is specifically mentioned, but the way I read this, the provisions on relaxing the cap contained within the regulations are not adequate and not sufficient to give comfort to nuclear decommissioning workers that they are indeed exempted in the way I know the Minister wishes them to be, and as they should be. The regulations should be drawn specifically to exclude those workers in nuclear decommissioning and I would like to see more specificity on that.
It seems that, because of that lack of specificity, we have been asked to agree on something here today in which there is a lack of clarity, from what I can see. We know that nuclear decommissioning workers do a very highly skilled job and that their job is sometimes dangerous, but to be caught up again, after all the cuts to their pensions in recent years, in attacks on their pensions through these public sector exit payments regulations is not acceptable. As we speak, it is creating disincentives for people to work, to be recruited and to stay in that industry, and it is extremely bad for morale.
Nuclear decommissioning workers who have contacted me, and who I know will have contacted any MP who has a nuclear plant in their constituency, are concerned. I am sorry to say that, when it comes to their pensions, they are right to be concerned, because it can be seen that the agreements they thought they had with the UK Government over several decades and the guarantees they were given are not being honoured.
When I raised this with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury three years ago, I was told that,
“it is necessary to have terms and conditions that reflect the modern situation that applies across the economy as a whole.”—[Official Report, 17 January 2017; Vol. 619, c. 769.]
How does that square with the cast-iron guarantees made to these workers when the nuclear estate was privatised? They were not told that those cast-iron guarantees were actually written on water.
The problem is that these workers are classed as public sector workers, but their terms and conditions are not devolved to the Scottish Parliament, as they are for other public sector workers. Scottish nuclear workers still have their severance and early retirement terms dictated by the UK Government, but the goalposts have clearly been moved when it is deemed financially beneficial for the Government or the industry, while the pension interests of the workers always seem to be a secondary consideration.
The Office for National Statistics has classed Magnox as a public sector organisation despite the fact that it works on sites that have been privatised. The draft guidance from the Government uses the definition of a public authority contained in the Freedom of Information Act 2000, which includes bodies specifically listed in schedules to the Act, publicly owned companies and any other body designated as a public authority by the Secretary of State. Interestingly, Magnox is not listed in the schedules, and that is because it is privately and not publicly owned. Consequently, the Freedom of Information Act does not apply to Magnox, except where stipulated in employee contracts with the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, and so neither do the IR35 reforms.
We have confusion and concern among nuclear decommissioning workers. That continues, and it is not acceptable. As we pontificate over these exit payment caps, I urge the Minister to remember that any change and any further attacks on these workers is a betrayal of the guarantees that they have had. We have been told today of waivers or exemptions—I am not even quite sure what the Minister is suggesting—but Magnox’s inclusion in part 1 of these regulations makes anything he says now equivocal. We need a clear statement that the measures will not affect nuclear decommissioning workers. That is a simple ask that needs a yes or no answer, and I look forward to the Minister giving me that yes or no answer.
Steve Barclay
I thank colleagues for their engagement in the debate. As I have already remarked, the Government are strongly of the view that the regulations are important in delivering value for money. It is right that the cap on public sector exit payments comes into force without further delay to stop the excessive payouts that are, unfortunately, all too common.
The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran asked me to clarify the position on nuclear decommissioning, which has been a much-debated issue. Indeed, there was extensive debate during the passage of the primary legislation about the inclusion of nuclear decommissioning workers in the scope of the regulations. As we have set out many times—most recently by ensuring that the cap covers all of the public sector at once—the cap should apply to all public sector organisations with very limited exemptions. The defining feature of that is what is set by the Office for National Statistics.
We are able to exercise our own judgment, but for the most part, the scope has been guided by the ONS, which makes objective judgments, independent of Government and the regulations. The ONS classification is what means that the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and its site-licensed companies are in the scope of the regulations, but we have a mechanism to waive certain pension-related payments upon redundancy, and that is what has been decided—I read that out for the benefit of the hon. Lady. In short, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority has a waiver, but the organisation is classified by the ONS, which is why it is within the scope of the cap—that is the interaction between the two.
The hon. Member for Ilford North started by generously acknowledging that we have listened and addressed some issues of concern. There are some areas of misunderstanding: an equalities impact assessment was issued with the primary legislation. He then said that on the one hand, we do not need the regulations, but that on the other, he was against excessive payments. I would argue that the whole purpose of the regulations is to curb the excessive payments that he, I and a number of colleagues across the House agree are not value for money.
The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark—
Steve Barclay
I will take his intervention before I address his question and then I can answer them both at the same time.
Neil Coyle
I appreciate that. If the Chief Secretary believes that the issues are resolved, why has the British Medical Association—the organisation that represents the health workers that he clapped on Thursdays—already sought a judicial review against the regulations because they extend the scope of the enabling statute? How does he square the circle when the regulations mean preventing some contractually agreed payments and tribunal award, and which the BMA says represents an unlawful extension of the primary legislation?
Steve Barclay
The reality, without wanting to stray into the issue of litigation, is that this is a cap on payments, so a body representing members may have concerns about that. The issue before the Committee is what constitutes value for money for the taxpayer. I remind the Committee of the fact that payments can be more than six times the national living wage and four times the average earnings. During the time of coronavirus, those are very substantial payments. You will be familiar with, Sir Christopher, some of the payments that were read out on the Floor of the House—those of NHS managers for example, who receive very large payments and then reappear elsewhere in the NHS very shortly.
Wes Streeting
Of course, it is easy to point to those examples. I wonder how the six-figure pay-off to Mark Sedwill could have been considered value for taxpayer money, and how much the wider cull of top civil servants under the Government is costing the taxpayer.
Steve Barclay
I was going to come to local authorities, but to address the issue of senior civil servants, that flowed from the decision to split the role of the Cabinet Secretary and the head of the civil service with that of Sir Mark’s other role as National Security Adviser, which meant that he was stepping down before the end of his tenure. It was therefore appropriate that Sir Mark was compensated in line with the civil service compensation scheme, and the sum is in line with the normal rules governing civil service pensions and compensation. Since 2015, in anticipation of the introduction of a cross-public sector cap on exit payments, any civil service exit costing more than £95,000 requires approval by Cabinet Office Ministers to ensure that it provides value for money to the taxpayer. As someone who worked with Sir Mark, particularly in my role as Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, I place on the record what a fine public servant he was and how much I valued working with him during his time in office.
The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, who made a number of interventions—I hope that comment is not untoward—also raised a legitimate point about local authorities. As I say, it is something I looked at in particular. Local authorities’ ability to restructure should not be dependent on six-figure taxpayer-funded payouts. Councils will still be able to restructure and exit staff in any way they wish, provided the sum of any exit payment does not exceed £95,000. The Government accept that there might be instances where it is in the interests of urgent workplace reform to relax the restriction imposed by the regulations, so there is flexibility within the system.
Finally, the hon. Member for Ilford North raised the issue of index-linking. The point is that we want to retain the flexibility to revalue the cap both upwards but also downwards. If one looks at the economic consequences of coronavirus, ensuring that there is flexibility in the system is a prudent way to manage the public finances.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
I have listened carefully to everything the Minister has said. I appreciate the arguments that he has put forward, but we should remember that, in the time of covid, many of the people who will be affected by the proposed changes are on relatively moderate salaries and have given years of their lives dedicated to public service, and will be giving everything to help get through this covid crisis. I want to put on the record that it is vital that the Government keep the measure index-linked so that it does not erode over time and vital that all the promises that the Minister has made today do not become meaningless within a few years.
Steve Barclay
I acknowledged earlier that in a previous speech the hon. Lady accepted the principle of capping excessive payments, but raised concerns to which I listened intently. I join with her in paying tribute to the work that so many have done across the public sector, but at the same time it is important to get value for money. For that reason, I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put.
Written Statements
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Corporate Transparency and Reform of the Companies Register
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
My right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Minister for Climate Change and Corporate Responsibility) Lord Callanan has today made the following statement:
The Government published its response to the 2019 consultation on options to enhance the role of Companies House and increase the transparency of companies and other legal entities on Friday 18 August. The consultation received over 1300 responses from all across business, academia and civil society and I am grateful to all those that took the time to submit their views.
The response outlines the Government intention to take forward many of the measures proposed in the consultation. Our vision is for a company register built upon relevant and accurate information that supports the UK’s global reputation as a leading exponent of greater corporate transparency. Companies House will play an even stronger role as an enabler of economic growth, whilst strengthening the UK’s ability to combat economic crime.
These reforms will support the Government ambition of making the UK the best place in the world to start and grow a business. Businesses will benefit from more reliable information, streamlined and digitised processes and an improved user experience, reflecting the needs of business in the 21st century.
The key measures are:
Identity verification. We will introduce compulsory identity verification for all directors and beneficial owners—people with significant control—and individuals filing information on behalf of a company.
Reforms to Companies House powers. We propose giving the registrar much stronger powers to query, seek evidence for, amend or remove information and to share it with law enforcement partners when certain conditions are met.
Protecting personal information. We will give individuals more rights to remove personal information from the register, to help protect them from fraud and other harms.
Company accounts. We propose mandating electronic filing to bring the UK in line with international best practice and will look to simplify the filing of accounts with Companies House and HMRC. We propose a further consultation on options to deliver these reforms. These reforms will have a negligible impact on the speed at which incorporation and other filings are completed: we still expect the vast majority of companies to be able to incorporate easily within 24 hours. Costs will remain low by international standards. Where more information is being sought from companies, for example for identity verification, technological solutions will ensure that additional burdens on business and individuals are kept to a minimum.
The Government will consult on further reforms to make Companies House data more useful and usable, including reforms to the filing of company accounts and the registrar’s powers. Once the detail of all the proposals has been settled, the Government will bring forward legislation to implement the reforms when Parliamentary time allows.
[HCWS459]
Adult Social Care Winter Plan
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Care (Helen Whately)
I would like to update the House on the Government comprehensive adult social care covid-19 strategy and its publication of the “Adult Social Care Winter Plan”. A copy of the plan will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. The coronavirus pandemic has created unprecedented challenges in the United Kingdom and around the world.
This has resulted in an equally unprecedented, but not unexpected, response from the social care sector and its dedicated workforce of 1.5 million people, who alongside the 5.4 million plus women, men and young people who provide unpaid care, have made an invaluable contribution to the national effort and our gratitude to them all is immense.
Together, they have been working tirelessly to support people who need care, especially those who are older or already living with underlying health conditions making them more vulnerable to infection.
Alongside extensive efforts at local level, national Government have provided enhanced support to the sector, working with and through local leaders. This support was set out in the “Adult Social Care Action Plan” and “Care Home Support Plan”. It included £3.7 billion of emergency grant funding to local authorities to address the pressures on local services caused by the pandemic and a £600 million infection control fund to support providers to reduce the rate of transmission of covid-19.
Meanwhile, the adult social care covid-19 support taskforce, set up and chaired by David Pearson—social care covid-19 lead for the NHS and past president of the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services—formed part of the Government overall commitment to the sector.
It would be wise to assume that coronavirus, in addition to anticipated service demand, will place unique pressures on the health and care system this winter. Covid-19 will be co-circulating with seasonal flu and other viruses, and transmission may well increase over the winter period.
It is therefore essential that we—national Government and local partners—work closely together to make sure we are prepared for these additional pressures, particularly a resurgence of covid-19 cases. We must have robust plans in place to respond to challenging events and protect people who need care and the workforce supporting them.
The adult social care covid-19 support taskforce concluded at the end of August, and its recommendations have shaped our approach to tackling covid-19 in the adult social care sector and, in particular, the plans we have put in place for winter.
As we approach these colder months, the Government will play a key role in driving and supporting improved performance of the system, working with local authorities and the CQC to strengthen their monitoring and regulation role to ensure infection prevention and control procedures are taking place. The key elements of our plan for social care this winter are:
Providing an additional £546 million infection control fund to support infection control measures.
Continuing to engage with local authorities, care providers, people with care and support needs, and their families and carers to understand their needs and provide support.
Leading and co-ordinating the national response to covid-19 and providing support to local areas as set out in the contain framework.
Continuing to develop and publish guidance which is relevant and accessible, and update policies and guidance in line with the latest evidence. We will work to proactively communicate vital updates to our winter plan and other guidance.
Working relentlessly to ensure sufficient testing capacity and continuing to deliver and review the social care testing strategy in line with the latest evidence and scientific advice. We will also improve the flow of testing data to everyone who needs it.
Providing free PPE for covid-19 needs in line with current guidance to care home and domiciliary care providers via the PPE portal until March 2021.
Providing free PPE—for covid-19 needs—in line with current guidance to local resilience forums (LRFs) who wish to continue PPE distribution, and to local authorities in other areas, to distribute to social care providers ineligible for supply via the PPE portal until March 2021.
Making the flu vaccine available for free to all health and care staff, personal assistants, and unpaid carers.
Introducing tightened measures around visiting. We recognise that visits are important for the wellbeing of residents and loved ones, but with higher rates of covid-19 in the community, extra precautions will be needed. We have set these out in revised guidance. Infection control is paramount and in designated “areas of intervention” visiting will be stopped except in exceptional circumstances, such as end-of-life.
Stopping all but essential movement of staff between care settings to stop the virus spreading. We know that the majority of care homes have already done this—now we are taking this restriction further and will enforce this through regulation.
Working with the CQC to ensure that all places that receive people discharged from hospital are safe and have the highest levels of infection control measures in place.
Supporting providers to ensure that staff who are isolating in line with Government guidance receive their normal wages while doing do.
Publishing the new “Adult Social Care Dashboard”, bringing together data from the capacity tracker and other sources, meaning that critical data can be viewed in real time at national, regional and local level by national and local government.
Publishing information about effective local and regional protocols and operational procedures based on what we have learnt from so far, to support local outbreaks in the event of increased community transmission.
This does not diminish the need for a long-term plan for social care. Putting social care on a sustainable footing, where everyone is treated with dignity and respect, is one of the biggest challenges our society faces.
There are complex questions to address, to which we want to give our full consideration in light of current circumstances.
Successive Governments have failed to “fix” social care, but this Government have been clear that this must change. Right now, the Government No. 1 focus for adult social care is for everyone to receive the care they need throughout this pandemic.
This crisis, awful though it has been and continues to be, for so many people, may yet be the catalyst for a new kind of social care; services that reflect, adapt and future proof the health and wellbeing of all of us—now and for many generations to come.
[HCWS458]
Rail Franchises: Emergency Recovery Measures Agreements
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
When the pandemic hit, we stepped in to keep train services running for key workers and essential supplies. Today we are renewing that support with new agreements, called emergency recovery measures agreements (ERMAs), to support the UK recovery and continue the fight against the pandemic.
These agreements, which run for up to 18 months, are designed to bring the rail franchising system to an end. Coming into force yesterday, they contain provisions to bring current franchises to an end when these agreements expire.
They are the first step in creating a new kind of railway. One which is customer-focused, easy to use, good value and where the trains run on time. A structure will take shape over the coming months.
These new contracts continue to respond to the impact of covid-19 and ensure the railways continue to support the country’s recovery from the pandemic, delivering for passengers, freight and taxpayers. They keep the best elements of the private sector, including competition and innovation, that drive growth but go further by delivering greater leadership, direction and accountability.
Operators have now been placed on far more demanding management agreements, with tougher performance targets, and lower management fees. Management fees will now be a maximum of 1.5% of the cost base of the franchise before the pandemic began.
Complying with current public health guidance, I have also asked operators to run almost a full capacity service, to ensure there is space to help passengers travel safely while we continue to combat the threat of coronavirus.
The new contracts allow us to make an early start on key reforms, including requiring operators to co-ordinate better with each other and driving down the railways' excessive capital costs.
The railway will have a renewed and much sharper focus on delivering a reliable service which passengers and freight users can trust. This links to Keith Williams’s root-and-branch review of the railway. These measures have his full support, and will pave the way for a White paper on the wider future of the railway during the ERMA period.
Until passenger numbers return, significant taxpayer support will still be needed, including under the ERMAs announced today. But these arrangements pave the way for wider rail industry reform that put passenger priorities at the forefront and will enable substantial medium and longer-term savings for the tax payer. The railway will have a new and greater focus on delivering a reliable service which passengers can trust.
[HCWS460]